Sitting of 2 November 1987

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

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy if there are any plans for further capital investment in the electricity supply industry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The electricity supply industry is entering a period of intensive growth and re-equipment and this year intends to spend some £1,300 million on capital investment. In 1988–89 capital investment in the industry will increase and will continue to rise thereafter.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that power workers have done and are doing a tremendous job restoring electricity supplies following the hurricane last month? However, does that not demonstrate once again the vulnerability of our overhead power lines and their detrimental effect on the environment? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account when drawing up investment aims in the privatisation programme to include transmission as well as the generation of electricity?
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the electricity supply workers. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in congratulating those workers on effectively rebuilding the rural distribution system, which took nearly 20 years to develop and which was rebuilt in only two weeks.
    My hon. Friend may be interested to know that this year and next we shall spend more on the transmission system than on generation. We recognise the need to modernise the system. I am sorry that I cannot promise that we will put all the cables underground. The cost is massive. It would amount to roughly 10 times the cost of overhead power lines. I cannot see any prosepect of being able to afford to make that investment in any time span that my hon. Friend could imagine.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How would the Secretary of State respond to the remarks made by Mr. John Banham, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said that privatisation would lead to a £1·2 billion hike in industrial electricity prices and lack of competitiveness in British industry? How would the right hon. Gentleman respond to those concerns?
    Mr. Parkinson: I do not share those concerns. The truth is that the British electricity industry provides power to British industry at a very competitive price. British industry needs a secure supply, and that means a massive
    634
    investment programme between now and the year 2000. That programme must be paid for. We are concentrating on having a modern electricity supply industry in the years ahead. That must be a great boon for British industry.
    Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, pending privatisation, major new orders for power stations by the Central Electricity Generating Board should be allowed to go ahead only if they can be justified on real commercial rates of return or by raising money at commercial rates? Otherwise, privatisation may be undermined and private producers who have to raise money at commercial rates of return will be jeopardised.
    Mr. Parkinson: I agree that the industry has to raise its money in the market and make investments on a sound commercial basis. That is what it will do. However, we have another problem. We must ensure that the investment programme goes ahead without a hiatus. The present generation, especially of nuclear power stations, is becoming old and a substantial number of coal-fired stations need replacing. We are now entering a phase of massive investment and re-equipment.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: What rate of return is the CEGB expected to make on capital investment in nuclear generating capacity? How will that compare with the rate of return that a private, prudent investor might be expected to make on capital investment?
    Mr. Parkinson: The two things should he the same. The CEGB and the private investor should get a reasonable rate of return on their investment, and they cannot expect to receive a subsidised rate of return. We are having to raise money in the market, and we have to ensure that it is well invested and that the investor, be he public or private, receives a sensible return.

    Coal-fired Power Stations
    Sir Trevor Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take into account the environmental damage caused by gaseous emissions from coal-fired power stations when he considers the relative merits of coal and nuclear electricity generation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I take account of the environmental implications of all forms of electricity generation when considering their merits.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Minister give his estimate of the cost of the removal of sulphur dioxide, which is causing so much damage and of nitrogen oxide, which is also causing much damage? What is the cost of the abatement of carbon dioxide which is changing our weather and also of metallic substances, which are going into space? Would it not be a good idea to build more nuclear power stations, which have very much less pollution in them? Would that not solve some of our problems?
    Mr. Spicer: Coal-fired power stations do emit quantities of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. That is why the Drax A and B and Fiddler's Ferry power stations are to be retrofitted with desulphurisation plants at a cost of £200 million each and why all future coal-fired stations are to be fitted with desulphurisation plants. It is also why low nitrogen oxide burners are to be installed at the 12 largest coal-fired power stations.
    Mr. Barron: I am sure that we are all pleased that such a programme is going ahead. However, does the Minister not think it strange that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) should ask such a question today when only last year he was arguing for a nuclear-free zone in Bedfordshire in respect of waste from nulear generation?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has good reasons for asking all those questions.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that opencast coal is very much cleaner than deep-mined coal, and that one way in which we could solve the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) alluded would be by expanding production of opencast coal? Is he further aware that the small private sector of opencast producers is desirous of increasing its production but is being prevented from doing so by British Coal, which is taking such a long time to decide on licence applications?
    Mr. Spicer: On my hon. Friend's second point, I shall be discussing these matters with the chairman of British Coal this week, and I shall raise that point with him. It is true that much opencast coal has a lower sulphur content than some of the deep-mined coal. It is therefore true to say that more opencast coal would be to the benefit of deep-mined coal.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister confirm that all coal is different and that it does not necessarily follow that opencast coal in one part of an area will have the same sulphur content as that in another part of the area? Will he also confirm the CEGB's claim that sulphur emission has declined by 20 per cent. since 1980 and by 40 per cent. since 1970? Will he also confirm that if flue gas desulphurisation is introduced that could be responsible for a 90 per cent. reduction in sulphur emission?
    Mr. Spicer: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's last point. As for his first point, I think that the figure of 40 per cent, applies to sulphur from all industries. I do not think that it is true of coal plants. However, it is certainly true that desulphurisation plants will markedly reduce the amount of sulphur content. It is also right to say that there is a variety of sulphur content in opencast coal, but in this country it has, on average, a lower sulphur content than deep-mined coal.

    British Coal
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of British Coal at regular intervals to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Hardy: When the last meeting took place, was the Secretary of State advised of the enormous concern within the British mining industry that, despite the enormous increase in productivity, the need to maintain security of energy supply and the importance of the home industry as a base for our mining equipment and engineering industries, there is a great eagerness among his colleagues to see British coal replaced by imports that may be dumped to secure our currency or which may be mined by people who work at unnecessarily severe risk? Is the right
    636
    hon. Gentleman among the short-sighted and greedy of his colleagues, or does he take the wiser view that prevails among Opposition Members?
    Mr. Parkinson: The Government committed themselves in their manifesto to maintaining and working towards a secure coal industry. We believe that Britain's coal reserves are a massive national asset and that, properly developed, the industry has a big future. That is why we have supported a substantial investment programme amounting to £2 million a day. The chairman and I meet to discuss the future of the coal industry because we both want to ensure that it has a good future.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Coal, did they discuss the mineworkers' pension scheme, which pays a meagre pension to its members from its £5 billion fund? The independent Nottinghamshire-administered pension scheme run by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers has just increased its payout by no less than 30 per cent.
    Mr. Parkinson: I read the report to which my hon. Friend refers, and I hope that Opposition Members will draw their own conclusions. However, I did not discuss it with the chairman of British Coal when I last met him.
    Mr. Eadie: When the Secretary of State has the opportunity, will he discuss with the chairman of British Coal the present bad state of industrial relations in the industry? I ask him to consider, first, that the board was found to be deceiving the public by saying that the code of conduct was based on the ACAS formula when it was not. Secondly, does the Secretary of State consider that it is bad industrial relations for the board to say that the industrial action which resulted was not very effective and then to say that NUM members cannot have a 4·8 per cent. pay increase because of that industrial action? Is that not ridiculous?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry to have to say that I consider the overtime ban the most ridiculous aspect of British Coal's present industrial relations. It is unnecessary, and it is damaging to the interests both of the miners and of the industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to bring this wasteful dispute to an end.
    As for the code of conduct, British Coal made it very clear that it was prepared to discuss the details. It was the NUM which, for a long time, refused to hold a meeting to discuss it.
    The only question now outstanding is whether pit umpires or industrial tribunals are the best way of solving disputes. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that over and over again miners have shown that they prefer industrial tribunals. The UDM refuses to use the pit umpire rule because there is no chance of appeal, and the courts cannot be used for that purpose. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ask his NUM colleagues to think again about their mindless and damaging action.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Boswellasked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he will take to stimulate competition in the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Parkinson: The introduction of competition is one of my principal objectives, and we are working on proposals to that end.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, does he agree that some measure of pluralism in the retail distribution system, an opening of the ownership of the grid and a measure of competition in generation are the best ways to ensure continuing competition, downward pressure on prices and innovation for the consumer?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. However, I do agree that a monolithic electricity supply industry without competition would be a handicap to the country. There are difficulties about competition in distribution. However, I believe that there is plenty of scope for competition in generation, and we are working on proposals that will produce more competition.
    Mrs. Clwyd: If the Government foolishly persist with privatising the electricity industry, will the Secretary of State confirm that the control and financing of our nuclear power stations will remain with the state?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the hon. Lady that assurance, but in our manifesto we said that, in addition to coming forward with proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, we would maintain a nuclear programme. I believe that it is vital to do so. Fitting those two commitments together is one of the problems on which we are working and with which we are achieving success.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that due to the fact that generation is the major part of the cost of electricity, there is an increasing demand on this side of the House, and I believe in the country as a whole, for competition to be made available, not only on distribution, but on generation?
    Mr. Parkinson: There is nothing new about this as a principle. The 1983 Act envisaged giving private generators access to the grid. At the moment seven proposals are being considered, and the CEGB tells me that it welcomes them. Therefore, what my hon. Friend says is right and possible, and we shall bring it about.
    Mr. Prescott: As the Secretary of State has confirmed that he intends to privatise the electricity supply industry, but that he still does not know how that will be done, will he inform the House whether, through the intensive discussions that he is having with Lord Marshall, he agrees with Lord Marshall's view, in the leaked confidential document that was given to his board, that to privatise the electricity industry would, in breaking up the integrated power system, result in the loss of the benefit of economy of scale, seriously prejudice the security of supply and increase prices? Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that prices are likely to be increased in April, in line with his policy?
    Mr. Parkinson: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and wishing him well in them.
    I have had discussions with Lord Marshall and also with the trade unions and many other people. Those discussions are continuing. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Our plans are evolving nicely and we are on schedule. We shall be coming to the House with clear proposals for a restructured industry. I do not accept that the consequences will be as outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
    638
    Whether the industry stays in the public sector or goes into the private sector, the rate of return of the industry has to be improved if the investment programme is to be funded. That fact would be true whether the industry were in the public or the private sector.

    Coal Mining Industry
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry compared with 1983–84.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ending 10 October, average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·62 tonnes—and impressive increase of some 50 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that this substantial improvement in productivity is a great tribute to the miners and the management of British Coal? Does he also accept that there is much potential for further improvement in the next couple of years?
    Mr. Spicer: My answer is yes to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. There has been a substantial improvement. Taking the first six months of 1987–88 and comparing them with the first six months of 1986–87, productivity has increased by 15 per cent. However, this has to be viewed in the context of what is taking place in other countries. For instance, productivity in the United States and Australia is four times that of this country.
    Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister realise that productivity could be increased even further? Because of the massive pit closure programme, all the skilled men are leaving the industry. I know what I am talking about; I had 35 years underground. Experienced men are being laid off through redundancy. Why does the Minister not have a look at that side of the question?
    Mr. Spicer: Certainly there have been considerable redundancies, and I fear that there will be more. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is extremely knowledgeable about these matters, that a large part of the increase in productivity in the British coal mining industry has been due particularly to the massive investment in heavy duty equipment, which at the moment is going on at the rate of £2 million every working day.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend confident that the impressive improvements to which he referred in his answer can be maintained to the point where British Coal will be able to compete in the highly competitive environment of a privatised electricity generation industry?
    Mr. Spicer: I am confident that if British Coal maintains its present rate of increased efficiency it will be able to compete effectively in the context mentioned by my hon. Friend.

    Oil Reserves
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of United Kingdom oil reserves; and how this figure compares with one and five years ago.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): The latest estimates of remaining recoverable oil reserves in discoveries made to date on the United

    639
    Kingdom continental shelf are between 710 million and 2,050 million tonnes; this compares with an estimate of between 750 million and 1,880 million tonnes one year ago, and an estimate of between 1,050 million and 2,300 million tonnes five years ago.
    Mr. Chapman: In the light of those figures, does my hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of oil exploration must remain the topmost priority? Is he satisfied with the number of applications coming forward? Perhaps he can tell the House how many he has received and how many he has approved in, for example, the past year.
    Mr. Morrison: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Government's policy is to encourage, in so far as it is possible, further oil exploration. I am never satisfied, but the figures for this year for development plans are that we have approved 10 new oilfield developments, and a further 11 are under consideration.
    Mr. Kennedy: What is the implication of those figures for onshore fabrication yards such as Highland Fabricators in Nigg? We were pleased that the Minister took the trouble to visit that yard during the parliamentary recess. That yard, a major employer in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), is currently experiencing a rundown of employment because of the changing nature of the orders in the North sea and the contracting nature of the prospects for tendering at present.
    Mr. Morrison: I learnt a great deal from my visit to the fabrication yards. I appreciate now, if I did not before, the difficulties to which they have been subjected, which have come about in principle because of the drastic cut in the price of oil. We are doing everything we can to encourage orders to go to the yards, through the Offshore Supplies Office. We will continue to do that, and, as I said in my previous answer, the fact that development plans are coming forward and have been approved and that further development plans are being considered are moves in the right direction.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend congratulate that private sector industry on the huge success of its developments in making this country self-sufficient in oil for so many years? Will he press the Treasury to ensure that the tax regime is developed in a way that will encourage continuing exploitation of the reserves in the North sea, especially the secondary depletion of existing oilfields?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend. What has been achieved by the private sector in the past 25 years in the development of the United Kingdom continental shelf is perhaps beyond our wildest hopes and aspirations 25 years ago. Everybody involved is to be applauded. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the tax regime is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, in so far as I can and where it is necessary, I assure my hon. Friend that I act as a conduit of information to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will take my hon. Friend's points into account when he forms his Budget.
    Mr. Rowlands: Despite the talk of a possible new boom in the North sea, is the Minister aware of the plight of some British-owned supply companies? Is he aware that
    640
    the share that the British-owned companies have is far less than the much-vaunted and much-quoted figure of 80 per cent. of orders? The report of the Select Committee states that the figure is less than a half. What specific measures does the Minister have to bring forward on the development of contracts for British-owned supply companies in the North sea?
    Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the work done by the Offshore Supply Office, well before my time, has increased the United Kingdom content of all the services, all the fabrication, and so on, that go into the North sea. That has been done on a consistent and continuing basis, and it is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to pursue vigorously. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is difficult to discriminate between United Kingdom-owned and United Kingdom-based companies. I hope he will agree that the most important thing is to ensure that employment should arise because the United Kingdom-based companies get the orders.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Spellerasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on support for the concept of a Severn tidal barrage and for tidal power as a means of electricity generation.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Tidal power will be encouraged provided it remains economically viable and environmentally acceptable. As a result of present studies, some of which I announced in September, I hope that substantive decisions about the Severn will be taken around the end of next year.
    Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for that most helpful answer, following his most constructive comments in the debate last Friday. Will he bear in mind that people in Britain are very much in favour of renewable energy sourses such as tidal power? They regard the Severn tidal barrage as a flagship for the future of renewables and they will look to the Government for considerable help for that project.
    Mr. Spicer: As to help, we are providing one third of the current expenditure of £4·2 million, and that is being spent on the studies that are being carried out on the Severn. As to those studies, we hope to reach a point where decisions can start to be made by the end of next year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Tidal power certainly should be an option, since I have recently discovered that trains carrying nuclear waste have passed within 10 yards of houses in my constituency. Will the Minister say what extra safety precautions have been taken to avoid a catastrophe in the event of an accident?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that question goes a little wide of the subject. It is ingenious, but a bit wide.
    Mr. Stern: In the light of my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that all the questions that are being and will be asked about the potential environmental and other effects of the barrage will be answered by the end of next year, which is the time that he has set himself to make a decision?
    Mr. Spicer: I know that my hon. Friend is knowledgeable on this subject, particularly on the point of

    641
    silting. I gather that he is carrying out some studies and we look forward very much to hearing their results. We shall take into account anything that my hon. Friend has to say.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry for British Coal contracts with that industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: The taxpayer is funding a very substantial and continuing investment programme for the modernisation and development of British Coal. If properly utilised, that investment, which is currently £2 million per day, should result in British Coal being able to meet the demands of a privatised electricity supply industry efficiently and effectively.
    Mr. Barron: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the current joint understanding between British Coal and the CEGB has meant that about 60 million tonnes of coal are sold to the CEGB for a price that is cheaper than it costs to produce? Last year, in response to the massive shortfall in world oil prices, British Coal gave £300 million to the CEGB and gave further reductions in the remaining two years of the current contract. With regard to any break-up as a result of competitive generation, will the Secretary of State ensure that British Coal's case is heard, and heard well, so that it can win all the contracts to carry on its supply to the CEGB and to protect the mining communities of Britain?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot bind the privatised industry to buy its coal from any particular supplier. If British Coal is a reliable, efficient and competitive supplier, I do not see any reason why industries should look elsewhere for their coal. The key is for British Coal to use its investment well, for management and unions to stop wasting time on useless working to rule and overtime bans and to get down to the business of developing modern working methods to use the modern machinery that is available. In that way, British Coal will have a future, but only in that way.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the price of coal has a major impact on the price of electricity? Does he agree that if the electricity industry were to buy coal at world prices, instead of acting as a semi-captive customer of British Coal, the price of electricity for everyone in this country would fall significantly?
    Mr. Parkinson: It is clear that the CEGB pays a higher price for its coal than the most marginal world price, but that case can be overstated. If British Coal were to stop supplying, and if the CEGB were to go into the market for 70 million tonnes, the price would change. British Coal must realise that its future is dependent, not on any agreement with the electricity supply industry, but on its performance. If British Coal performs as I believe it can, it has a good future.
    Mr. Rogers: Following the right hon. Gentleman's own logic, if he suggests that the coal industry should be shut down, will he urge his Cabinet colleagues to shut down every inefficient farm which results in consumers,
    642
    including coal miners, having to buy food at well over the right prices? That might stop the hypocritical cant from Conservative Members.
    Mr. Parkinson: May I make it clear that I do not want to close down the coal or agriculture industries. Both have a very bright future, but the future of the coal industry—to repeat myself—depends on its performance and not on any understandings between the CEGB and British Coal.
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the average cost of electricity generated in the United Kingdom compared with the average cost in France.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: The average cost of electricity generated in the United Kingdom in 1986–87 was 2·8p per unit sold. It is not possible to quote a directly comparable figure for France because of different accounting procedures.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for his partial answer, but does he not agree that it is probable that the costs in France are lower because of the larger content of nuclear generation? What success has the British industry had in reducing its costs and improving its efficiency over the past few years?
    Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's complimentary remarks about my partial answer. He referred to the average costs of electricity generated. It is genuinely not possible, due to the different accounting procedures, to give a directly comparable figure. I can give my hon. Friend the standard tariff for domestic consumers. The cost in France is about 7·94p per unit, and in England and Wales about 6·3p per unit, which is cheaper. But, to qualify that remark, the French figure includes local taxes and VAT. As for productivity increases, I am delighted to say that in England and Wales the operating costs per unit have fallen some 10 per cent. since 1983–84. That is a major achievement, on which the industry needs to be congratulated.
    Miss Mowlam: Does the Minister accept that the average cost of electricity generated in the United Kingdom in the future will be affected by the proposed expansions at Hinkley Point? In view of that, will he tell us whether the public inquiry at Hinkley Point will take place before, or after, privatisation?
    Mr. Morrison: I certainly would not accept the premise of the hon. Lady's question. As we work towards privatisation I would expect to see further productivity gains, as has happened in the past, and therefore generating costs being reduced rather than increased.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Baker, the managing director of the CEGB, said in a speech at the CBI conference yesterday that the average price for the publicly owned electricity supply industry in France and Britain was 4·7p per kilowatt hour compared to the average price for the privately owned electricity supply industry in Japan and the United States of 9·6p per kilowatt hour. As this represents a doubling in the price of electricity and as the Secretary of State says that we must expect an increase in prices to deal with the rate of return under privatisation, is that the cost that consumers will pay for the privatisation of electricity?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

    Asfordby Pit
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the maximum coal production planned for the Asfordby pit.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: The performance of individual pits is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I shall ask the chairman of BCC to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the Asfordby pit has been held out by the Government as providing the hope of jobs for the many Leicestershire coal miners who have been thrown out of work as their pits have been closed? Is he aware that yesterday, without informing either unions or management, British Coal saw fit to transfer the Asfordby pit from Leicester to Nottinghamshire? Is he aware that this is a political stunt—probably on behalf of the Tory party—and that jobs in Leicestershire are now at risk? Will he at least give us some hope that further pits are to open in the Vale of Belvoir?
    Mr. Spicer: The area in which the British Coal decides to run its pits is a matter for that body. I see no logic in the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that there is any threat to jobs simply because the Coal Board has moved the pit from one area to another.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the percentage contributions to the national grid of the various methods of electricity generation.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: In 1986–87 conventional steam generation contributed just under 80 per cent. of the electricity supplied to the national grid in Great Britain. Nuclear power contributed just under 19 per cent. and the remainder was supplied by natural gas, gas turbines and hydro-electric generation.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, will he assure the House that it will continue to be the Government's policy for the nation to rely on multiple supplies of energy from different sources, so that no industry can ever be put to the hazard by political troublemakers at the expense of us all?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government certainly intend that there should be a versatility and a variety of energy supplies in this country. We are very fortunate, because not only do we have fossil fuels, but we are one of the leading countries in the world in nuclear energy.

  THE ARTS

    Haymarket and Phoenix Theatres, Leicester
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister for the Arts when he next proposes to make an official visit to the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I would like to visit Leicester again before too long.
    Mr. Janner: I hope that the Minister will come back to Leicester so that he has the opportunity to pay tribute to the excellence of Leicester city council in promoting the
    644
    arts, and to the work of the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres, which is in jeopardy because of the cuts in the value of the Arts Council grant last year and uncertainty in the future. Will the Minister offer some hope of continuity and permanence in the work of those great Midlands theatres?
    Mr. Luce: I know very well the reputation of the Phoenix and Haymarket theatres. That is one reason why I look forward to coming to Leicester again.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a cut in grant. He may like to know that there was, in fact, an increase in the Arts Council grant to the Haymarket theatre of 25 per cent. in two years. That does not imply a cut. The support for the theatre has increased in real terms, which shows that the Arts Council values the work of the theatre in Leicester.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it would be good for the theatre in Leicester and in other provincial centres if the Arts Council did more to promote the work of touring companies?
    Mr. Tony Banks: Tory companies?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend asked about touring companies. He has pointed to something very important—the need for more touring to strengthen the arts in all parts of the country. I am glad that the Arts Council has now established an independent production company, for which it will provide one third of the investment required. The rest will come from the private sector. In return, the Arts Council will promote up to six new touring productions a year. That will certainly benefit the country.

    Women Artists
    Mrs. Mahonasked the Minister for the Arts how many exhibitions receiving financial support from the Arts Council were by women artists in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Luce: In the five years up to and including 1986–87 the number of exhibitions at the Hayward and Serpentine galleries, and on tour, that included women artists was 25, 11, 11, 15 and 21.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister realise that since 1910 only nine women have had shows at the Tate gallery, as compared with more than 200 males? What does the Minister propose to do to address himself to this blatant discrimination?
    Mr. Luce: The figures for exhibitions supported by the Arts Council—both on tour and in London—show that women artists have participated in more than 50 per cent. of all exhibitions. That suggests that we are moving in the right direction. However, it is for women to decide whether to participate.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relevant question is not whether exhibitions are by women, but whether they are any good?
    Mr. Luce: Of course, that is right. Any woman would take it as an insult if, in terms of artistry, she were picked on any ground other than merit.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that there has never been an exhibition by a woman artist at the Hayward

    645
    gallery? Is he further aware of the real frustration and anger—[Interruption.] That is an amazing display of male prejudice by Government Members.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware of the frustration and anger felt by women audiences and women artists all over the country at the discrimination and bias against their voice in the arts and media? If the right hon. Gentleman has any interest in the subject at all, will he fund the Arts Council to do some research, to consult women artists and perhaps make it a condition of Arts Council funding that it monitors and improves the role of women in its administration and its organisations?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no women's exhibitions at the Hayward gallery. In the past five years there have been 10 exhibitions in that gallery that have included women artists. That is clear evidence of women's participation and interest. To suggest that there is discrimination against women in the arts is patent nonsense. What matters is the creation of an environment in which we encourage women with talent to participate. That is a more fruitful way to proceed than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anger and frustration among the male community at the number of times women feature prominently in works of art?
    Mr. Luce: I shall proceed with caution on that question. However, when I launched an "Art in Government" initiative last week, four out of the final six in the competition to spread more pictures round Civil Service offices were women artists.

    Opera Companies
    Mr. Fearnasked the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to increase Government aid to opera companies.
    Mr. Luce: It is for the Arts Council to decide how much of its moneys shall go to support opera companies. I plan to help arts bodies generally to increase their income from all sources.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that help for the opera would he forthcoming if the 9 per cent. cut since 1979 to the Arts Council grant were restored? The sum involved is £151 million.
    Mr. Luce: It is important for the hon. Gentleman to get his facts straight. The real increase in resources to the Arts Council since 1979 is 15 per cent. Since the hon. Gentleman's question was about opera, I must tell him that 23 per cent. of all resources for the Arts Council goes to opera, which is the most expensive form of art. Some outstanding opera companies in and outside London are helping to generate new opera audiences. The high cost of opera has to be borne in mind.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend tell the chairman of the Arts Council of the enormous support in the provinces for touring opera companies such as Opera 80 and Kent Opera, whose performances are widely appreciated in areas which cannot normally expect to see the major opera companies?
    Mr. Luce: Yes. The chairman of the Arts Council is fully aware of that. The standards of excellence in the regional opera companies are extremely high. It is important for the future to generate new opera audiences.

    Women
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister for the Arts whether he will commission research into the position of women in the arts in Great Britain.
    Mr. Luce: No, Sir. I do not consider it necessary. It is more valuable to spend time encouraging women to participate in the arts.
    Mr. Fisher: I am sorry that the Minister's interest in research into the arts, which he demonstrated in his support for the Policy Studies Institute report, which we wait with impatience, does not extend to this important subject, which affects 52 per cent. of audiences. Indeed, women make up more than half the audiences of the performing arts. Does the Minister not understand that the problem is deep rooted? If his mind is not entirely closed, he should welcome research.
    Mr. Luce: There are some non-Government bodies undertaking research in that area. I have already said that it is more productive for me, to spend time not carrying out or launching research, but encouraging, more women to participate in the arts, if they so wish. That is a more useful way of going forward. That is why I have written to every sponsoring body of the arts—that is, bodies that use taxpayers' money—asking them to ensure not only that they are pursuing equality of opportunity policies, but that, when considering nominees for their boards, there is always a woman on the short list.
    Mr. Leigh: Is it not a grotesque and ludicrous excrescence on the face of artistic freedom to suggest that a person's sex is of the slightest interest in the assessment of merit in the artistic world? Have we not today been treated to a farrago of feminism gone mad from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)?
    Mr. Luce: Many women would take it as an insult if they were selected on any basis other than equality of opportunity and merit. If they qualify for the job, based on their qualities and talents, that is fine, but only on that basis.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Public Appointments (Women)
    Mr. Butlerasked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress he has made in encouraging women to apply to the public appointments unit.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The public appointments unit has cooperated fully with the women into public life campaign and the number of women's names coming forward from this and other sources is showing an encouraging increase.
    Mr. Butler: I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not part of the farrago of feminism and that my interest is spontaneous. However, can he say whether the number of women on the public appointments unit list has risen?
    Mr. Luce: A year ago the number of women on the list was 18 per cent.; today it has risen to 27 per cent. I regard it as an encouraging sign that more and more women are willing to have their names on the list.
    Ms. Armstrong: May we offer the Minister our deepest sympathy for having arrayed behind him people who have no appreciation of the important contribution that women do, and can, make to our society, especially in areas where they can contribute to the ideas and thinking of the public service? Is he aware that we wish to support him in ensuring that women make a full contribution? Is he further aware that 20 per cent. is not a full contribution? If he were serious about appointing people on merit, the figure for women would be 52 per cent.
    Mr. Luce: I wish to make two points to the hon. Lady. First, Parliament could set a slightly better lead in the number of women Members. Secondly, if organisations were to follow my example they might be better off, because in my Office my permanent secretary, my principal private secretary, my assistant private secretary, my special adviser and my press secretary are all women.
    Mr. Gow: If my right hon. Friend looks to his left at the second Bench above the Gangway, will he not see five hon. Ladies who are Members of this House? Is it not an act of grievous discrimination against men that that Bench should have become the prerogative of hon. Ladies?
    Mr. Luce: I take my hon. Friend's point. We must get away from the idea that there should be a statutory number of one sex or the other. People must be promoted on the basis of merit, and on no other basis.
    Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister realise that there are many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women whose skills and experience could be of great use on public boards? Will he try to find more and better ways of letting women know how they can apply? Many women from small women's groups in the community—for example, the Women's Institute—do not know the procedure for doing so. Will he ensure that he advertises this so that there is a better spread of women?
    Mr. Luce: I welcome any opportunity to make sure that women are aware of the existence of the public appointments unit and aware that they can have their names considered for that unit and go forward for consideration on a short list. That is why, in the past year we have undertaken a major campaign to make that opening available to as many women as possible. I welcome the chance, on this occasion, to make that clear.

    General Medical Council
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister for the Civil Service when the Lord President of the Council next expects to have an opportunity of reviewing the procedure rules of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council (S.I. 1980, No. 858.)
    Mr. Luce: These rules on the responsibilities of the General Medical Council are subject to the need for Privy Council approval of any amendments. I understand that the General Medical Council has a number of amendments under consideration but that they are unlikely to be made before next year.
    Mr. Spearing: When that time comes, will the Minister and the Lord President bear in mind that schedule 4(5) to
    648
    the Medical Act 1983 gives them powers to require further review? Is the Minister aware that, in a recent note to Members of this House, the chairman of the General Medical Council said that the council's principal task
    "always has been, that of informing and protecting the public".
    Would it not be a good thing to review the rules in the light of those excellent precepts, especially paragraph 60 of the current statutory instrument relating to the availablility of transcripts of the hearings of the GMC? Is the Minister aware that, in a recent tragic case, the wife of a deceased gentleman was asked to pay £400 for the transcript of the case heard by that council? Does he think that that charge needs review, and is it in line with the precepts that I have just quoted?
    Mr. Luce: On that specific case, I understand that the GMC is not considering a possible amendment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it costs £400 to obtain a transcript if the party is found not guilty. In those circumstances, it is considered to be improper to use taxpayers' money to provide a transcript. Of course, if the party is found guilty, the transcript is provided free of charge. That is the position as it stands, and I believe that it is a reasonable position.
    Mr. Forth: When considering these matters will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the increasing abuse that many medical practitioners make of their position when they are prepared to intimidate and frighten their patients for blatantly political purposes? Does he not believe that it is high time the GMC looked into that and perhaps amended its rules to protect patients against abuse by their practitioners for political ends?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend may be right, but it is not really a question for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Dr. Marek: I always thought that the Minister was a reasonable man, and I was extremely surprised to hear him say that he thought that £400 was a fair sum to charge for providing a transcript. It is not reasonable, and justice cannot be done if the average person seeks redress at the GMC. I know that the case has been judged, but there must be ways of providing transcripts at vastly cheaper rates than £400. Will the Minister look into this matter? I ask him to consider seriously that sum of £400, which is not a reasonable sum to charge.
    Mr. Luce: I shall, of course, draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Lord President. However, the point I was making was related to the earlier question put by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). There is a policy whereby, if the party is found not guilty, it is not considered necessary to incur taxpayers' expenditure to provide a transcript. If the party is found guilty, obviously it is right to provide the funds for that transcript.

    Executive Officer Recruitment
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service if the review of executive officer recruitment has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the results.
    Mr. Luce: The review is nearing completion and I expect to receive a report on it shortly.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House what aspects of executive officer recruitment the report will cover? Will he assure us that the intention of the report is that we have efficient and effective recruitment of executive officers—men and women—and that it is not planned to give special priority to women?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that last point. The main criticisms relate to the recruitment time scale and the suitability of some recruits for specific types of executive officer work. The report will address those matters as well as, for example, the need to have greater flexibility in recruitment arrangements and the likely cost implications of selection methods. As I have said, the report is due shortly.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give us details of the procedures that are to be adopted when executive officers and others in the security service make complaints to an ombudsman? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports that have appeared in the press about these changes in the security service should have been notified to the House and not made the subject of press leaks?
    Mr. Luce: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Payroll Giving
    Mr. Yeoasked the Minister for the Civil Service when staff in his Department will be able to make donations to charities by deduction from salary under the payroll giving scheme.
    Mr. Luce: Arrangements have been made with the Charities Aid Foundation by the Treasury to allow civil servants paid through the Chessington computer centre, which includes my Department, to make tax-free donations to charities of their choice. The necessary application forms for this will be available from the foundation as soon as possible. The Government have now made the payroll giving scheme available to nearly 300,000 civil servants. I hope that other employers will follow this lead.
    Mr. Yeo: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on implementing these arrangements for civil servants? Will he monitor the response that this scheme receives from the Civil Service so that in a year or so we may know how large the donations have been? Secondly, is it possible for hon. Members and the staff of this place to take advantage of the scheme?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend's last question, which is an important one, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard what he had to say. I can assure my hon. Friend that monitoring will take place. The important thing is that employees in Government services should have a chance to participate. If each one of them contributed the full amount, £35 million could be raised for charity. We now want to see as many other employers as possible following this lead.

Abdul Behvand and Parivash Moosavi (Asylum Application)
3.31 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the treatment of Abdul Behvand and Parivash Moosavi, and their application for asylum to enter this country".
The background to this case is that Mr. Behvand has been in active opposition to the Khomeini regime in Iran for many years. He worked in the oil industry and was active in promoting independent trade unionism. This marked him out for opposition by the Iranian Government. Indeed, three of his colleagues were executed for their opposition to that Government and to the war. Several times in the past few years Mr. Behvand has been arrested and beaten up while in custody in Iran. That caused him to go into hiding, from which he managed to escape from Iran briefly into India.
After arriving in India, Mr. Behvand and his wife were able to travel to Sweden this summer, where he applied for political asylum. After that application had been made, they were held in detention for one week. The application was refused and they were put on a plane, accompanied by two policemen, to travel back to Iran. They arrived at Heathrow airport in transit to take an Air Iran flight direct to Teheran. It was not until they arrived at the transit lounge at Heathrow that they were able to make contact with me and the representatives of various refugee organisations. That was a month ago.
It was then that they made an application to enter this country and for their case to be properly considered. They were taken to the Harmondsworth detention centre, given temporary admission and allowed to remain in a hotel in west London until this Saturday morning, when they were told to report to Heathrow airport for interview about their case.
When they arrived at Heathrow airport on Saturday—a day on which no court is sitting and when no lawyers or members of this place can be contacted—they were told that they would have to leave Britain that afternoon to return to Sweden, where their application for political asylum had already been rejected.
I made a number of requests throughout Saturday and had a long conversation with the chief immigration officer to ask that the case be deferred so that legal considerations could come into play and they could be allowed to remain in this country so that a proper asylum application could be made. At that point the immigration service bundled this family on a plane some two hours before it was due to take off. In an act of sheer desperation, Mrs. Moosavi slashed her wrist. The air crew of Scandinavian Airlines refused to fly the plane with the family on board. Accordingly they were taken from the plane and given temporary admission to this country until 3 November, which is tomorrow.
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, and finish my application. This tragic story——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had his time and has made his point.
Mr. Corbyn: I have not finished.
Mr. Speaker: There is a three-minute limit.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the treatment of Mr. Abdul Behvand and Mrs. Moosavi and their application for asylum".
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that the matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Sylvia Wright (Imprisonment)
3.34 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the case of Sylvia Wright,"
a constituent of mine who is 56 years of age and severely disabled, and who was thrown into gaol last week because she failed to pay a £110 fine, at a time when strenuous efforts were being made in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to underwrite the underwriters so that they would not go to gaol. This case is another classic example of there being one law for the rich and another for the poor.
A few years ago, Sylvia Wright suffered from breast cancer and had to have a breast removed. She receives the pension for the severely disabled of £37 a week. She has never appeared before a court previously and has never had a police record. She had no representation when she went to the Derbyshire magistrates court, with the result that those heartless people threw her into New Hall prison in Wakefield for 30 days. Since then I have been constantly in touch with the Home Office to try to secure her release—[Interruption.] It is high time that those Tory Members who are baying showed a little compassion for this woman who, when she is at home, spends most of her time looking after two handicapped boys. She does not have a husband to look after her. I want her back in her home at 48 Byron street so that she can carry out that job.
The whole case stinks. We have recently seen examples of those in high places being able to get away with transgressions of the law. When Mr. Keith Best, a former Conservative Member, was put in gaol for about 48 hours, every Tory Member was squealing to high heaven, with the result that they got the Lord Chief Justice to release him. It is high time that people such as Sylvia Wright received the same treatment. Many City spivs somehow manage to escape gaol. Mark Phillips received only a token fine; he did not go to gaol or lose his licence. There is one law for the rich and one for the poor.
I want a debate on this matter to replace this afternoon's debate on a Bill which attacks people in poverty. This issue concerns a more important subject. Sylvia Wright should be released from prison.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Mrs. Sylvia Wright's imprisonment for non-possession of a television licence".

653
Again, I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said about his constituent, but I regret that the matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

State Security
3.38 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the time of discussions in the House on the Massiter affair and security, I asked the Prime Minister whether she would consider setting up a post of ombudsman or counsellor so that those staff in MI5, MI6 and GCHQ who are in difficulties because of policies that they are asked to implement would be able to discuss their difficulties with a higher authority. The Prime Minister gave me a not unhelpful answer. However, I have been waiting about 18 months for the result of her considerations.
Therefore, it was surprising and, I considered, a discourtesy to the House that this weekend I read her decision in a newspaper that was briefed by the journalists at No. 10. That is not a proper way to ascertain the Government's decision on this most important issue.
I ask you, Sir, whether you have heard from the Leader of the House that, as, according to one newspaper and, I understand, copied in another, the Government have made their decision, and as the Minister for the Civil Service said this afternoon that it was a decision for the Prime Minister and was in her hands, we would have an oral statement today. No other form of statement will do on such an important issue.
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point——
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me. The whole House knows that whether or not there are statements from the Government Front Bench is not a matter of order. The Leader of the House is present and I am sure that he will have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. There will undoubtedly be an opportunity to raise this matter on Tuesday and Thursday when the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Banks rose——
Mr. Speaker: I cannot deal with the matter.
Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order——
Mr. Speaker: It cannot be further to the point of order because the subject of the point of order is not a matter for me. It is not one of order.
Mr. Banks: It is about the order of the House, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I cannot do anything about the matter. I have already said that there will be opportunities later this week to raise it.
Mr. Banks: But, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

State Security

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Ordered,
  That the draft Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Building Societies (Limited Credit Facilities) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[.Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill which I commend to the House today is a short one, but it achieves a good deal in a few clauses. Most important, it provides the background for yet another major extension of our training programme for young people who have left school at 16 or 17 and who have not found work. It also reinforces the contributory principle which has underlain the qualification for national insurance benefits since the time of Beveridge. The Bill provides a statutory basis for payments to those in greatest need during exceptionally cold weather, and, following certain legal judgments, it restores the original intentions of Parliament concerning attendance allowance and the calculation of earnings of claimants' dependants.
  I begin with training. The House will be familiar with the background. Before 1979 there was no national programme for the training of young people. From nothing, we have built up, first through YOP and since 1983 through the YTS, to today's position where we offer a guaranteed place of quality training to every 16 and 17-year-old in the country. The scheme has so far helped well over 1 million youngsters. Two thirds of them have then gone straight into jobs, or into further education or training. The quality of the training is appreciated by the trainees who have shown in polls that by a huge majority they consider their YTS experience worthwhile. Over 100,000 employers are now participating, demonstrating their commitment to producing a work force of greater kills to meet the demands of today's job market.
  The Government's view is that we cannot and should not abandon all interest in the education and training of our young people who have left school aged 16 but have not been able to get a job. Until their 16th birthday the Government are responsible for seeing that they get full-time education. Thereafter, they are free to decide what to do—to continue their formal education or to enter the employment market. For those who have been unable or unwilling to do either, society has, until this Government's youth training programme began, been content thereafter to let them sink or swim; no matter that the world now demands for most jobs higher skills than are readily attainable at school.
  We could not accept that view. The Government's financial commitment to youth training now runs at over £1 billion a year. As the length of YTS has grown and as the guarantee of a place is firm, unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds need no longer exist.
  Furthermore, the training allowances for those on YTS have been set at a rate well above the basic supplementary benefit rates for most young people. As I said, unemployment for young people need not exist. They have every incentive, including financial incentives, to avoid it, and now they have every opportunity as well.
  That has raised the question in the public mind—is it then right to pay benefit to those who refuse a place, have
  656
  left school and are not in work? Is that right in two senses? First, is it right to draw young people into a benefit culture when the opportunity is there for the taking to acquire the skills and experience to get on to the employment ladder, to be independent and self-reliant? Secondly, is it right to ask taxpayers, many of them far from well off and many of them young, to subsidise those who deliberately choose to ignore this opportunity? We propose——
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State has referred three times to those youngsters who deliberately choose not to go on YTS. He will be aware that the Bill does not propose to withhold benefit from those youngsters who deliberately choose not to go on YTS. It proposes to withhold benefit from all 16 and 17-year-olds, many of whom have never been offered a place on YTS, never mind refused it, and at least 2,000 of whom tried to get a place on YTS last year but could not find one.
  Mr. Moore: Intimately related to the Bill, as I will explain in a moment, is the opportunity of a guarantee, as expressed in the election manifesto, to ensure that all children, post September 1988, are guaranteed a YTS place. There will of course be exemptions, which will be covered in the Bill.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Moore: I will continue for a little and then give way, as is my custom.
  We included the proposal in our election manifesto that we would guarantee a place on YTS for every school leaver under the age of 18 not going directly into a job. We said in the manifesto that we would take steps to withdraw entitlement benefit from young people under 18 who chose to remain unemployed. I believe that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in his intervention.
  The manifesto was fully endorsed by the public on 11 June. We are now putting before the House the legislative implications of our manifesto commitment. That YTS guarantee in the manifesto, the bridging allowance in the Employment Bill that will be discussed in the House tomorrow and the benefit changes in the Social Security Bill make up the new arrangements for the under-18s, so that no young person who is able to take up a YTS place will have the option of living off the taxpayer.
  Mr. Nellist: My question is in two parts. Is the Secretary of State's guarantee on a par with the guarantee offered in the Tory party manifesto on child benefit? Secondly, is it not true that young people today do not need coercion on YTS, but jobs? There are 2,700 youngsters on YTS in Coventry, 4,000 16 to 18-year-olds were unemployed in July this year, but there are 481 vacancies at the jobcentre. The official unemployment figures for Coventry as a whole show that 22,000 people are unemployed. That means that there are 47 unemployed people for every vacancy. Instead of conscription on to YTS, we could do with another 46 jobs for the unemployed to bring full employment to the area.
  Mr. Moore: The public expressed their view of the Conservative party manifesto at the general election on 11 June with regard to the opportunities for youngsters. I will consider that matter later in my remarks.

  657
  I want to explain how the system will work. When a youngster leaves school at 16 or 17 having decided not to take formal education further, but does not immediately go into work, his parents will be able to claim child benefit——
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Moore: I hope to cover many points in my speech, including those that the hon. Lady might wish to raise.
  As I have said, the parents will be able to claim child benefit for an extended period provided—and this is the key proviso—that the child is registered at a careers office or jobcentre or on a YTS course. For summer leavers, the period runs another four months until the end of December and for Christmas and Easter leavers it runs an extra three months. Benefit stops of course as soon as the youngster takes a job or YTS place.
  By the end of that extended child benefit period, we guarantee to have arranged a YTS place for any youngster who wants one. I emphasise that point to the hon. Member for Livingston. The scheme of course is not compulsory.
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moore: When the child benefit period runs out, there will be no income support for under-18s except in very special cases generally where for one reason or another it is impossible for the youngsters to take up a YTS place. Those exceptions will be spelt out in regulations to be made under the Bill.
  Ms. Armstrong rose——
  Mr. Moore: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to complete this passage. It might be helpful if Labour Members allowed me to express the position clearly. As always, I shall then be happy to give way, although it may be that we can avoid the need for the hon. Lady to ask questions that I am now seeking to answer.
  We will ensure that those young people who are not currently required to be available for work—the severely disabled, the long-term sick and one-parent families, for instance—will not be adversely affected by the change. They will continue to receive benefit without any time limit. Others, such as orphans and youngsters who are necessarily living away from home because of a risk of physical or sexual abuse, will be entitled to income support during the child benefit extension period only. During this period they will be able to take advantage of the YTS guarantee and secure a training place which will carry with it payment of the training allowance at a higher rate than their benefit, so enabling them to continue to live independently.
  I recognise that it will not be possible to prescribe in advance all categories of young people for whom, exceptionally, payment of income support will be appropriate. The Bill therefore gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to direct that, exceptionally, a young person should be treated as though he is in one of the prescribed groups. This power will be used in circumstances in which it is judged that severe hardship would result if income support was to be withheld.
  If a young person has started a YTS place or a job and for one reason or another the place or job comes to an end before his 18th birthday, he is guaranteed another YTS place. This YTS place might take several weeks to arrange.
  658
  In the meantime we shall be paying him the YTS bridging allowance, and provision for that is made in the Employment Bill that will come before the House tomorrow.
  Ms. Armstrong: The Secretary of State said that young people will be guaranteed a place of quality on the YTS scheme, but his colleague told me in answer to a question in July that at present the quality of YTS could not be guaranteed, and he admitted that my area in particular had enormous difficulty in finding sufficient places of quality that will produce a skill at the end of the training period. That is because mine is an area of high unemployment. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that YTS places are of quality, and what tests will there be to ensure that the young person can legitimately say, "This scheme is of a quality that will enable me to get a job at the end of it"?
  Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be addressing the specific guarantee offered within the YTS scheme, and I am sure that he will assure the hon. Lady and the House about the extent to which the scheme will give an absolute guarantee of a job or a replacement job. That will provide the kind of quality assurances that the hon. Lady seeks. The absolute guarantee is expected to come into effect in September 1988, so there is still a little while before then. However, I expect that the hon. Lady will wish to address that point to my right hon. Friend tomorrow.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, to the extent to which this new regulation will get us away from the suggestion that the YTS scheme is some kind of punishment but rather that it is a wonderful opportunity for people to learn some skill, it will be widely welcomed? Can he possibly reassure those excellent YTS managers in my area who have expressed to me some anxiety that they may be faced with one or two unwilling conscripts whereas up to now they have had nothing but creative volunteers for whom they have provided excellent experience?
  Mr. Moore: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to what I said earlier about the outstanding success of our attempt to ensure that we have a better trained population who will be needed for the new work skills. Obviously my hon. Friend will want to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment tomorrow, not only about the success of YTS but also about the way in which it can obviously be improved.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Moore: I have so far given way with considerable ease, but I now wish to continue.
  Let me make it quite clear—and this is important—that the purpose of these proposals is not to save public expenditure. On the contrary, the net effect of these arrangements will be to add to public expenditure, not reduce it. The saving on benefit payments covered by the Bill will be £84 million in a full year, net of higher costs of child benefit. That, however, will be more than offset by the additional cost of the YTS programme.
  The arrangements will fulfil our manifesto commitment, including our promise to look after those who cannot be available for training. Our mandate is clear:

  659
  public support is overwhelming. I have little doubt that our proposals would also be supported by Beveridge if he were alive today. Beveridge wrote that
  "for boys and girls there should ideally be no unconditional benefit: their enforced abstention from work should be made an occasion for further training".
  It comes as no surprise that the Labour party has forgotten its Beveridge. Nor is it surprising that, as usual, Labour Members are out of touch with the requirements of today. Their opposition shows a staggering indifference to the needs of the young and the legitimate rights of the taxpayer. However, I predict that before too long the designer Socialists will ensure as spectacular an about-turn on this issue as we witnessed on council house sales.
  The Bill also contains measures that emphasise the contributory principle in qualifying for national insurance benefits, and reinforce the original purpose of unemployment benefit. That purpose was to insure those who are accustomed to earnings from employment for short periods of unemployment while they seek work. Clause 5 strengthens the connection between previous contributions and entitlement. The Bill provides that, to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit, a person must have paid, or been credited with, national insurance contributions in the past two years, not just the last year. It is now possible for a person on average earnings to fulfil the last-year condition on national insurance contributions paid simply on nine weeks' work. Once the Bill becomes law, it will be possible for such a person to qualify on the basis of nine weeks' work in each of two years. In addition, for unemployment benefit alone, the person must have paid contributions in one of those two years, not, as now, in any year.
  The latter condition will not apply to sickness benefit, to ensure that a person who believes that he has recovered from a long-term illness is not penalised for returning to work and then falling ill again, only to find that he cannot obtain benefit because the relevant year contains only credits and no paid contributions. Such a person need not be deterred from returning to work, because he can be confident that if he has the misfortune to fall ill again he will continue to qualify on the basis of the credits awarded to him while he was ill.
  As part of this package of contribution changes I propose also to amend the Social Security (Credits) Regulations so that credits for short-term benefits will no longer be awarded to people entering the national insurance scheme for the first time—mainly, of course, young people—to help them to satisfy the contribution conditions at an early stage. Otherwise, we should have the curious effect that the people least affected by the change requiring contributions to have been paid for two years would be youngsters who had never been in employment, and yet who would receive such credits to give them a flying start. It makes no sense to make unemployment benefit more easily available in such circumstances, and there is no longer the same need to make sickness benefit more easily available, as severe disablement allowance is now available in appropriate cases without any contribution record. But credits will continue to be awarded for those in full-time education or training after school for any tax years after and including the year in
  660
  which the person reaches age 18, and the provisions for awarding credits for long-term benefits, such as retirement penion, to young people will remain unchanged.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Before the Secretary of State moves on to the next clause, may I invite him to consider the combined effect of the two clauses to which he has just spoken? Let us suppose that a school leaver obtains employment after leaving school, works for 18 months and is then made redundant on the basis of "last in, first out". He finds that, after 18 months steady work, he is now unemployed. Under the clause to which the Secretary of State has just referred, there is no prospect of his having made contributions to unemployment benefit; and, under the first clause to which the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself, he will no longer have any entitlement to income support for those under 18. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the school leaver should be denied any benefit—that he should go back home, and his parents should draw child benefit?
  Mr. Moore: No, I am not. He will be entitled to the bridging allowance, as well as to the YTS opportunities.
  Clause 6 extends a principle that is already a feature of our law. Unemployment benefit was never intended for those who have retired and no longer seek work. That is why, since 1981, those over 60 receiving an occupational pension of more than £35 a week have had their unemployment benefit abated. Since 1981, however, the picture has changed. There has been a considerable growth in the number of people under 60 who are receiving occupational pensions. It is entirely consistent with the original intentions of unemployment insurance to propose that abatement should apply from the age of 55.
  Mr. Nellist: Why has the Secretary of State increased the hardship by saying that abatement should apply from the age of 55? Anyone with an occupational pension of over £35 a week will lose, pound for pound, his unemployment benefit. If the Secretary of State is not prepared to withdraw the clause, why has he not at least index linked the £35? As it was introduced six years ago, it should now be over £48. Those who take early retirement would not then lose up to £700 in the first year of unemployment. A millionaire with, say, £100,000 of investment income a year will not lose a penny, but a worker in, say, Talbots of Coventry who has paid into an occupational pension scheme will lose, pound for pound, everything over £35 a week.
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is making a series of different points, which I imagine he will want to raise in Committee.
  I accept that there has been no uprating since the figure of £35 a week was established. The hon. Gentleman asks why no change is being made at this point. The prime reason is the changing pattern of occupational pensions. The last change was made in 1981. For economically inactive men aged 55 to 59—not working, not seeking work, the long-term sick and those with occupational pensions—the figure was approximately 29·6 per cent. Today the figure is 43·6 per cent. There has been a radical change, and it is one of the factors that has to be taken into account, as well as the relationship between the real reason for unemployment benefit and the impact on a person's income. Unemployment benefit will not be extinguished for a single person until income reaches £66·50. For a married couple the figure is £85·90.

  661
  Other clauses in the Bill arise from recent legal decisions. Attendance allowance was first introduced in 1971. Its success as a valuable contribution to the extra needs of the long-term sick and the disabled has exceeded every expectation for it. About 600,000 now receive it and Government spending on it has risen under this Government by £500 million in real terms, or about 140 per cent. All of this occurred on a very broadly accepted view of what sort of care need was envisaged by Parliament in establishing the day and night time care conditions. But a Court of Appeal decision in the case of Mrs. Moran seemed to challenge what had been accepted for years.
  The court decision seemed to suggest that one of the night time conditions for the allowance could be met if, in order to prevent substantial danger, it was necessary for the carer simply to be on hand. The implication was that actual intervention by the carer need be comparatively rare, and for most nights of the week the carer's sleep could be uninterrupted. This interpretation threw the law into confusion. It undoubtedly cut across the Attendance Allowance Board's understanding of what it was intended to mean. This Bill would restore the law to what it was believed to be by emphasising that for the night time condition to be satisfied active supervision was envisaged—a wakeful and watchful presence. We have consulted the Attendance Allowance Board on the change and it is in complete agreement with our approach. This Bill would leave the alternative night time condition relating to the person's need for help with bodily functions absolutely unchanged.
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: After the Government lost in the courts in the case of Moran against the Secretary of State they moved the goalposts in the House of Commons. The Minister has obviously never looked after a sick or elderly person, otherwise he would never have put forward this proposal.
  Mr. Moore: Because of the inaccuracy of the hon. Lady's remarks, I see no reason why I should refer to personal issues. I am seeking to address the issues that relate to the Moran case. The law, and the practice of the law, as interpreted by Parliament, was as it was, but the courts took a different view of the law. The Government are seeking to put the law back on all fours with what it was previously.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, as Mrs. Moran was one of my constituents. Does not part of the misunderstanding arise from the fact that the Secretary of State thinks that Parliament interprets the law? Parliament lays down the law. The tribunal system and the courts then interpret the law. Did not the Secretary of State mislead the House when he suggested that there was some uncertainty about the law? By three to nothing the Court of Appeal threw out the Government's case. When the Government said that they might go to the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal was very tough and said that the Government would be wasting their time. The Government did not go to the House of Lords. They came back to this place to try to overthrow the Moran decision.
  I have two questions for the Secretary of State. First, when will Mrs. Moran be paid? Secondly, does not clause 1 of the Bill, which takes the attendance allowance away from tens of thousands of people who may be eligible for
  662
  it, tarnish the image that the Minister put forward last week, when he suggested that he was making great advances for the disabled?
  Mr. Moore: I have made it quite clear that the Government are seeking to put the law back to where it was and as it had been interpreted by Government arid Parliament. I cannot at this stage say when the position with regard to Mrs. Moran will be finalised. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is out of my hands. I wonder whether he would mind repeating his second point?
  Mr. Field: The first point that I put to the Secretary of State is in his hands. The tribunal has ruled and the Court of Appeal has ruled. Mrs. Moran has waited for many months for her benefit. When will she be paid? Secondly, last week the Secretary of State tried to appear to be an effective Minister who supports the disabled. Does it not therefore tarnish his image if he intends to take benefit away from tens of thousands of very disabled people?
  Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that his first point relates to the Attendance Allowance Board. Both the Government and Mrs. Moran are awaiting a decision on that point with great interest and urgency. The Government's proposals in this Bill seek to put the law back to where the Government thought it was. The hon. Gentleman referred to tens of thousands of very disabled people. Examination so far has uncovered only 700 cases where there is expected to be a different interpretation.
  In clause 9, similarly we propose that for the purposes of entitlement to an increase of benefit for a dependant, an occupational pension received by the dependant——
  Mr. Robin Cook: My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked the Secretary of State when Mrs. Moran will be paid. Will he answer that question'?
  Mr. Moore: I said—I thought with clarity—that the Attendance Allowance Board was considering the case. When it has completed its examination, we shall look again at the matter.
  Mr. Frank Field: If the Secretary of State is not disputing the decision by the Court of Appeal, why, four months later, is Mrs. Moran still waiting for her payments?
  Mr. Moore: I am now speaking for the Attendance Allowance Board, but I am not yet aware of its view. The board has to be satisfied as to the position and conditions. I have not yet been advised that it is.
  Mr. Field rose——
  Mr. Moore: With respect——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he does not wish to give way.
  Mr. Moore: This matter has take up considerable time. If there is a need for further clarification, I will be happy to ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled makes clear Mrs. Moran's position by the end of the debate. I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has an honourable tradition of fighting for his constituents.
  Mr. Field: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on the matter of furthering

  663
  my constituent's interests. There is no dispute about Mrs. Moran's circumstances. The case has been to the tribunal and the Court of Appeal. I am anxious to ensure that she is paid before the Bill becomes law because clause 1 is about denying her benefit——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. He has made his point.
  Mr. Moore: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has made his point. However, to reassure him, because there is a legitimate point beyond the case of Mrs. Moran and there may be other cases in the pipeline, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister to help in such matters before the Bill becomes law. It may be helpful if we include advice on that in the reply to the debate.
  In clause 9 we propose that for the purposes of entitlement to an increase of benefit for a dependant, an occupational pension received by the dependant is to be treated as if it were earnings, whether or not the dependant also has earnings from employment. This proposal follows a decision of the social security commissioners which showed up unintended inconsistencies in the law. Again, I believe that the spirit of the law is clear. Dependency additions are intended for those whose dependants have little of no means of supporting themselves. Occupational pension is as much as any other source of money.
  Additionally clause 2 completes the Government's changes to the industrial injuries scheme by providing the same pension to industrial widows as to national insurance widows. The cash advantage that the majority of industrial widows enjoy over national insurance widows has been frozen at 55p ever since 1967, under successive Governments. Following consultation on this subject and on the other reforms of the industrial injury scheme which we have already carried through, we made provision for this change in the Social Security Act 1986. However, we thought it right that existing industrial widows should continue to receive a retirement pension based on their own contributions on top of the widow's benefit. The Bill therefore replaces the 1986 provisions to achieve this. Future industrial widows will continue to have a particular advantage, which is that they will not have to meet a contributions condition. They will be able to receive national insurance widows benefit including, where appropriate, the new £1,000 tax-free cash grant payable on bereavement.
  This clause also replaces reduced earnings allowance for those retiring in future by a new benefit called retirement allowance. The new benefit is intended to compensate broadly for reduced pension entitlement brought about by reduced earnings following injury, and will be uprated in line with inflation.
  Some clauses in the Bill are required to tidy up the law or put matters beyond doubt. Clause 7, for example, makes clear that local authorities can, in an emergency, make an agreement with me to make social security payments on the Government's behalf and that I have the right to refund them for the payments and their reasonable costs. Clause 3 and clause 10 will ensure our ability to introduce family credit and the social fund's loans and grants system smoothly next April.
  Those are purely technical amendments, but the House may like some account of those affecting the social fund,
  664
  which are set out in schedule 3 of the Bill. The amendments in paragraphs 4 and 7 in particular are designed to clarify my powers to allocate and reallocate money from the social fund, and to give directions and guidance to social fund officers. As well as restating the existing powers in the Act, paragraph 4 makes it explicit that I can vary allocations in the course of a year if necessary—for example, to accommodate an unforeseen contingency such as a hurricane or to match a new local office catchment area. It also spells out the possibility of making allocations of recoveries from loans if we decide to do this in the years later than 1988–89. Paragraph 7 gives greater detail about the powers under section 33 of the 1986 Act to give directions and guidance to social fund officers, specifically in relation to maximum and minimum payments and payments in instalments or lump sums. It also enables me to establish and clarify whether loans or grants are appropriate to meet particular needs and to remove from the social fund officer the duty to determine whether to award a payment in certain circumstances. That would be relevant, for example, in the case of repeat applications made within six months without a change of circumstances.
  Clause 10 also enables us to continue a scheme for exceptionally cold weather payments after this coming winter. The arrangements for this winter were, of course, announced last week and continue the criteria which enabled us to bring timely extra help to nearly 1 million people last winter. That was double the number who had received help in any previous winter. The criteria for triggering the payment to those groups most in need were quite clear. The improvement to the scheme announced last week by my hon. Friend the Minister of State makes claiming the special payments easier. Once a claim has been made during a qualifying period of cold weather, it will be treated as a claim for any subsequent unusually cold spell which triggers payments. The present statutory basis for exceptionally cold weather payments ends with the abolition of single payments as part of the social security reforms. Clause 10 would enable us to continue such payments beyond this coming winter. The payments will be grants from the social fund, analogous to the grants which we have been making since April 1987 from the fund for maternity and funeral payments. There has been some debate in the press about this and it may be helpful for Labour Members if I make it absolutely clear that that is outwith the amounts I indicated for the social fund cash limit on Tuesday.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: There are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pensioners who are dependent on that extra £5 a week during cold weather. Will the Minister confirm that, although the present system is mandatory and one that the Government and the DHSS are bound to honour, he intends to introduce a discretionary system so that people will not receive payments as of right?
  Mr. Moore: That is quite wrong. As I have said, the exceptionally cold weather payments, as with maternity and funeral payments, are regulated and not discretionary. They are outwith the cash limits, but they come from the social fund.
  This is an important Bill. It contains a variety of provisions. Although some are purely housekeeping, others, as hon. Members on both sides recognise, are of

  665
  greater significance. For instance, our proposals for modifying the contribution conditions for short-term benefits will strengthen the link between benefits, participation in work and the payment of contributions. The proposed extension of the abatement of unemployment benefit brings the arrangements more into line with retirement patterns in the late 1980s. Both these amendments produce modest, but necessary, savings in public expenditure. We are also taking steps to prevent new interpretations of the law resulting in increases in benefit expenditure, and to ensure that the important social security reforms, which come into force next April, will operate as intended. The Bill fulfils at the earliest opportunity our commitment to the electorate to take measures to prevent young people from going straight from school into reliance on state benefits. We propose an increase in public expenditure to give them the opportunity of good quality training with a reasonable weekly allowance. This demonstrates our determination that they should be helped to make the very best of their talents, to make something of their future, and to build prosperous and personally satisfying lives.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: This Bill has a certain familiar ring to it. First, it provides the annual amendments to the Social Security Act 1986. It is only a year since the House passed that Act, which we were told at the time would be a major piece of social security legislation, comparable in its own way to Beveridge, which would weather the test of the next 40 years. There have been only two parliamentary sessions since we passed the Act and in each of them the Government have presented us with a Bill to pour mortar down the cracks that have already been discovered in the 1986 Act.
  I should begin by mentioning, charitably, to the Secretary of State that we have uncovered a provision in this Bill that makes nonsense of one of the sections that remain of the 1986 Act. In charity to the parliamentary draftsmen, we shall assume that it was a deliberate error to see whether Ministers could spot it. We shall not spoil their fun by pointing that out to the Minister, nor will we spoil our fun in debating the third annual amendment to the 1986 Act in 1989.
  The second familiar ring to the Bill is that it runs in a well-worn Government groove in that they have presented us with yet another social security Bill that excludes further groups of claimants from benefit. One potential result is that 170,000 unemployment claimants could drop off the unemployment register. Once again, the House is being invited to vote for a cut in registered unemployment, not by providing more work for the unemployed but by erecting even more obstacles for those who receive the benefit that obliges even this Government to count them as unemployed. I therefore regret that this new Secretary of State has been guilty of a such an example of lateral thinking and has presented us with a Bill that merely extends the work of his predecessor.
  I am aware of the conventions of the House, and I have guddled around to find something in the Bill that I can welcome on behalf of the Opposition. That is the greatest challenge that the Bill presents to any constitutional Opposition. The best that I can come up with is to welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has included provision for severe weather payments, which gives us a
  666
  guarantee that some payments will continue in 1989 and beyond. But that is as far as I can go. With the best will in the world it is impossible to work out what that scheme will be. Schedule 3 says:
  "Payments may also be made out of that fund"—
  the social fund—
  "in accordance with this Part of this Act, of a prescribed amount or a number of prescribed amounts to prescribed descriptions of persons, in prescribed circumstances to meet expenses for heating which appear to the Secretary of State to have been or to be likely to be incurred in cold weather.".
  I am aware that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be as mystified as I am about what we are being asked to vote for in that schedule. It is plain that the House is being put in the position, as it frequently has been over the past few years on social security legislation, of giving the Secretary of State power to pay whoever he likes at whatever level of income he chooses.
  Since the Secretary of State is left with a degree of discretion by that paragraph, I put it to him, in considering how he interprets it, that there are a number of improvements that he could make to last year's scheme, which proved so restrictive that in February the only pensioners who qualified were those living in or around Okehampton and Cornwall.
  One change that the Secretary of State should consider making is the removal of the ludicrous requirement that any seven-day cold spell must begin on a Monday. Unfortunately, in the past the frost has proved incapable of grasping the administrative convenience of starting any cold snap on the beginning of a working week. I hope that when the Secretary of State considers these prescriptions he will provide for the scheme to cover any seven-day period.
  But if that provision is unsatisfactory, the remainder of the Bill is flatly objectionable. I turn to the most profound change of all. Since 1948, the qualifying age for social security has been 16 years. The Bill raises that qualifying age to 18 years. It is an odd time to choose such a change, because in 1948 few school leavers were unable to obtain work. If ever there was a time for removing benefit on the ground that those who were not working were workshy, surely it was 1948, when the age was chosen as 16 years. Even as late as the mid-1970s, over three fifths of school leavers went straight into work. Last year, less than one fifth of school leavers were able to obtain work. Yet, at a moment when it is more difficult than at any time for the past 40 years for those who are leaving school to obtain a job, they are to be denied the right to any benefit if they fall unemployed.
  The Bill does not follow what the Government said in their election manifesto. They said that they would withhold benefit from those who deliberately chose to be unemployed. There is no evidence of a serious problem of youngsters refusing to go on YTS. The latest monthly figures relate to May 1987, when 17,500 youngsters entered YTS. In that same month a mere nine youngsters had their benefits stopped under the 13-week rule for unreasonably refusing to go on YTS. It would therefore be something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut to present the House with a Bill to resolve a problem created by nine people per month. However, that is not what the Bill does; it denies benefit to everybody under 18 years of age.
  The latest figures show that 92,000 16 and 17-year-olds draw supplementary benefit. As Lord Young has said that the Government intend to deny benefit to those who choose to lie in bed, it is worth considering who are those

  667
  92,000. Perhaps the largest group are those who are taking advantage of the 21-hour rule to take part-time education. According to the Government's own estimates, about 30,000 of that 92,000 are currently studying part-time in colleges or in further education. Under the 21-hour rule one can study for two A-levels. For those youngsters who choose that option it may be an entirely rational choice. It will give them a qualification to go on to further and higher education that YTS would not. I would have thought that a Government that keep telling us that they are in favour of expanding choice for the individual would have hesitated before removing that choice from 30,000 youngsters.
  A growing number of teenagers are homeless. In the main they do not leave home for flippant or trivial reasons but because of intolerable tension at home. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that benefit will still be paid to those who have left home because of violent or sexual harassment. As someone who represents a constituency with a large number of teenagers, I am able to say that the most common single reason why teenage girls leave home is sexual harassment by a stepfather or step-figure within the home. I welcome the fact that it may still be possible for such youngsters to obtain benefit, but the mind reels at the thought of those girls having to prove to a social security officer sexual harassment in the parental home as a qualifying condition for benefit.
  The Secretary of State is in a better position than anyone else to know—given his Department's difficulties with regard to Cleveland—how difficult it can be to establish sexual abuse or harassment. I would not wish to send constituents along to the DHSS office to discuss such matters over the table. Even if they succeed in obtaining benefit, on the terms that I understood the Secretary of State to explain to the House, it will be only for a limited time, until they go into YTS.
  The problem in that regard, as Opposition Members will be aware, is that no board and lodging allowance is attached to YTS. The moment one enters a YTS scheme one may qualify for a higher weekly benefit, but one will lose the benefit necessary to keep a roof over one's head. How the Secretary of State imagines that in those circumstances one can maintain an independent existence defeats me.
  Among those 92,000 people are a large number for whom work and unemployment are intermittent and recurring experiences. Far from being workshy, the teenage unemployed make desperate attempts to obtain work. They demonstrate the flexibility that the Government keep preaching to the rest of the work force. In any three-month period, one out of every five teenagers will experience unemployment. At any one time, one in eight teenagers will be in temporary employment. A large part of that teenage work force is taking work where it can find it and holding it for as long as it can. The Government are saying that every time teenagers fall through a hole in the system and drop out of work, through no fault of their own, they will not qualify for benefit; they will have to return home and ask their parents for pocket money.
  I asked the Secretary of State about the school leaver who worked for 18 months after leaving school, but who then became unemployed and who, under this measure, could not obtain income support. The Secretary of State responded by saying that he would be entitled to a
  668
  bridging allowance only if he opts to go on a YTS project. In effect, the Government are saying that someone who may have worked for 18 months, and who in the course of that time may have obtained relevant work experience and possibly become semi-skilled, should not expect to look for work again but should accept that the sole way in which they can receive benefit is by agreeing to go on a YTS project. That is precisely what the Government are saying in this measure. They cannot escape the fact that they have taken national insurance contributions from such a person for a year and a half but are now turning round and denying that person any form of benefit.
  I have spelt out the reasons why we object to this measure in its human terms, but let the House be clear about the fact that we openly reject the principle that YTS should be made compulsory in the way in which it has been made compulsory by the Bill. Moreover, just about everyone associated with YTS does the same. The Youth Training Board and the Institute of Careers Officers have rejected this principle. The MSC has rejected this proposal and, as late as July this year, wrote to the Government saying:
  "The Commission's position on this matter is clear. It has been repeated many times, most notably as one of the 5 cardinal principles of the design of the Y.T.S. We have always recommended that the scheme should be one in which participation is voluntary, whether by the employer or the young person. That remains our view."
  It does not lie with the Secretary of State to take credit for the success of the scheme run by the MSC when he so flatly rejects its advice about what will make the scheme succeed in the future.
  This proposal for youngsters must be seen in the context not of a plan for Government training but of what the Government have done to the labour market for teenagers. This proposal follows previous Government measures such as the young workers scheme, which subsidised the poverty wages of teenagers, or the removal of the protection of the wages councils to anyone under 21. Now, with this measure, they are creating a pool of labour which will be deskilled and casual and which will be looking for temporary jobs. The Government are effectively taking these young people one step further towards forcing them to provide cheap labour for any employer who is prepared to exploit the opportunity that the Government are creating for them. For that reason, as well as because of the human consequences, when the Division is called we shall vigorously oppose the Bill and that measure within it.
  Mr. Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there may well be many working on the ground in YTS who are attempting to give some element of training, the real reason why the YTS was set up was revealed by Sir John Hoskyns in 1981, when he was a member of the Prime Minister's think tank and wrote the paper on the scheme? He said that the scheme was designed to increase the differential between adult and youth wages. Over the past six or seven years the scheme has continually been used to drive down the general level of young people's wages.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that, on average, the real income of those below 21 has declined over a decade during which the real income of those over 21 has increased. It can only be a matter of time—if the House lets the Government get away with this measure

  669
  —before the Government come back with similar measures for the group between 18 and 24 to compel them to enter into mandatory forms of training as well.
  Clause 1 hits the smallest number of claimants of any clause, but that does not remove the fact that it is the meanest of all the clauses. It reverses a court decision. Having been beaten in the courts by Mrs. Moran, the Secretary of State is using his majority in Parliament to beat Mrs. Moran in Parliament. In a parliamentary answer the Government gave the categories of people who might benefit from the Moran judgment:
  "people who suffer from epilepsy, diabetes, haemophilia, heart attacks and angina, or multi-sensory handicaps; elderly people who suffer attacks of confusion; and children who are mentally handicapped or hyperactive, or who suffer from asthma or cystic fibrosis."—[Official Report, 23 March 1987; Vol. 113. c. 78.]
  It would be difficult to come up with a list of more vulnerable people who more clearly need as much help as they can get. Clause 1 is specifically devised to stop them getting the help to which the court ruled they were entitled.
  There is one particularly objectionable feature of the clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tried to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. Since the Moran judgment some 6,000 people have applied for attendance allowance on the basis of that judgment. We know that it was 6,000 because the Government admitted that figure as late as July this year. On all previous occasions when social security legislation has been changed to deny benefit, it has been accepted that those who have lodged their claims are entitled to have them assessed and the benefits paid at least up to the date when the law was changed. Clause 1 does not do that. It employs a cunning form of wording by which it will apply to any applicant whose claim has not yet been determined by the Attendance Allowance Board.
  I must pick up the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. As far as we are aware and in so far as we can make sense of the comments of the Secretary of State, Mrs. Moran's application has not yet been determined by the Attendance Allowance Board. The Secretary of State said clearly that the case was before the board. On that basis, it is difficult to understand how Mrs. Moran will obtain payment of the attendance allowance if the Bill goes through Parliament before the Attendance Allowance Board reaches a decision on her case. I am bound to say with the greatest respect and affection for Mrs. Moran that, even if the board lets her case through, there is no hope of the other 5,999 getting through.
  Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend was paying such careful attention to the Bill's wording that he did not have a chance to look at the face of the Secretary of State as he was reading it. The right hon. Gentleman looked surprised on hearing his interpretation. Will my hon. Friend give way to the Secretary of State so that he can clarify this point?
  Mr. Cook: I should be delighted.
  Mr. Moore: I was looking surprised because, although I understand the intricacies of this matter, I made it clear in answering one of the many interventions of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that we shall look more than sympathetically at any amendment that might be addressed to the clause to ensure that any cases in the pipeline—[Interruption.] If I may, I should like
  670
  to explain this important point. It covers many individuals. When the Bill was drawn up we sought a commencement provision that was simple to understand and apply. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to be precise when he concludes the debate and to show that we will taken into account what might be called pipeline cases.
  Mr. Cook: I began by saying that this was the second annual Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1986. This is a new first in social security legislation in that we have an undertaking to consider an amendment before the opening speeches have even finished. It would be churlish, however, not to welcome what the Secretary of State has said. I press him on this point: when that amendment comes forward, it must in all conscience, protect the position of all those 6,000 applicants who had lodged claims before Second Reading.
  I move from the clause that affects the smallest number of claimants to the one that affects the largest number—the one that will remove unemployment benefit from 350,000 claimants by tightening the contribution rules. Most of those 350,000 claimants will qualify for income support, but the Government's estimates tell us that 50,000 of that 350,000 will get none. Even those who get some will get income support at a lower level than unemployment benefit. One can make two points on this proposal. First, it will affect tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of claimants who have paid national insurance contributions for decades but whose contributions just happen to be defective in the two relevant years. Secondly, it will hit the low paid worst because they need longer in which to accrue the necessary number of contributions. They are then caught in the trap of being paid least while at work and they are now also to be paid least when they are out of work.
  The next largest group of claimants affected consists of mothers and their children who are to lose welfare food. The Maternity Alliance advises me that no fewer than 220,000 mothers and children will lose their entitlement to welfare food or free milk. That entitlement is worth £1·75 per week per person entitled to the milk or £3·50 if, as is likely, two members of the household are entitled to the benefit. One consequence of the change is outstandingly perverse; irrespective of their income, pregnant girls under the age of 16 will lose entitlement to free milk daily during the pregnancy. That means that the very group of people most likely to give birth to underweight babies are to be denied free milk. In other words, the mothers most in need of nutritional help will be certain not to get it. I suppose that that is in line with the Government's criteria; the fact that they need the benefit most is the most sensible reason for denying it to them. As the Secretary of State seems to be undertaking to amend the Bill, I hope that when he considers the clause he will reverse its effects to ensure that free milk is available to pregnant girls under the age of 16.
  I turn to the part of the Bill which deals with the second age group most affected by the increase in unemployment over the past decade. Those who have suffered most from the unemployment crisis fall into two groups. We have already discussed school leavers and young people. The second group constitutes older members of the work force who find that when redundancies are thought necessary they are singled out for early retirements. If they foolishly volunteer for redundancy and leave the factory they find that it is extremely difficult to get work again outside.

  671
  The Bill lowers from 60 to 55 the age at which unemployment benefit is reduced by any occupational pension received by the claimant. As a result, 27,000 men and women between the ages of 55 and 60 will lose all entitlement to unemployment benefit. I have two observations to make. First, the clause affects the very people towards whom the Government might be expected to feel warmly. They have shown thrift and foresight in providing for themselves—qualities that the Government constantly seek to urge upon the work force. They have provided themselves with an extra income against their retirement. Now, as a reward for taking the Government's advice, they are to have their right to unemployment benefit taken away, even though they may well have paid national insurance contributions for the 40 years since they entered the work force.
  Secondly, the Government cannot get away with presenting the proposed further reduction in the age level as an extension of the principle which says that those over the age of 60 have already retired. When introducing the provision for those aged between 60 and 65, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Patrick Jenkin, said:
  "Unemployment benefit is intended for unexpected and unforeseeable contingencies. It really cannot be said that retirement at the end of a pensionable career—this clause applies to people over 60 years of age—constitutes unemployment in the accepted sense of the word."—[Official Report, 15 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1046–47.]
  Is any member of the Treasury Bench willing to stand up and say that unemployment at 55 does not constitute unemployment in the accepted sense of the word and that it is better regarded as retirement? Unemployed people over the age of 55 do not regard themselves as retired. Indeed, the Government have unveiled the results of a survey showing that only 3·5 per cent. of those between the ages of 55 and 59 who are out of work regard themselves as retired.
  One third of those between the ages of 55 and 59 are now out of work and by 1990 more than half of them will be out of work. Indeed, that is already the case in the north and the north-west. They are out of work not because the north and the north-west are more affluent or because there is greater emphasis on leisure and early retirement but because that is where the redundancies take place. The more that older workers become unemployed, the more necessary it is for them to have unemployment benefit and the less case there is for taking their entitlement away from them.
  In total, the Bill would extinguish the right of 400,000 claimants to benefit. It would reduce the right to benefit of a further 300,000 claimants. The odd thing is that most of those 700,000 people will live in Conservative Members' constituencies. Unfortunately, that is inevitable, simply because there are so many Conservative Members. The kindest malediction that I can offer any hon. Member who votes for the package of cuts is that those of their constituents who are affected by turn up at their surgeries and demand to know why he or she did so.
  In the financial memorandum I cannot find a single clause that will result in a net increase in expenditure. According to the financial memorandum, the total saving to the Department of Health and Social Security will be £275 million. Tomorrow, the House will hear the Autumn Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We understand that the Chancelor is likely to tell us that tax
  672
  revenues are buoyant and that public sector borrowing is down. He will undoubtedly tease us on the subject of his Budget intentions but it is most likely that he will leave himself room for a further cut in income tax next March. This Second Reading debate provides an ironic counterpoint to tomorrow's statement on the Government's expenditure plans. We believe that there can be no case for the Government cutting benefits for the poorest while they are able to find the money to cut the taxation burden on the wealthiest. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The Bill is a matter of high political contention. Passions will run high during the next few hours. The usual dogmas will be aired—probably by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We shall hear of the problems of inertia in social security and social security payments. We shall hear much of reforming zeal, whether successful or unsuccessful, from both sides of the House. But we are really talking about legislating for people and their families.
  I shall concentrate on what is common political ground. We need go no further than clause 1 to find the provision concerning the attendance allowance. One family in my constituency has two haemophiliac children, one of whom is affected with the AIDS virus. He is HIV positive. I have been fighting a battle on that family's behalf to try to ensure that they receive attendance allowance. One would think that that would be basic and simple enough. My efforts have failed and the case has brought to my attention some of the nonsense that we talk when discussing these matters of high political contention. Instead we should all be trying to solve the problems of individual families such as the family that I mentioned.
  Some 1,200 haemophiliacs in this country are now HIV positive. They have been contaminated by blood products from blood donations in the United States and the Third world. It is now required that such blood products be treated, so that we can now ensure that they will not infect those whom they are supposed to help. However, the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient in blood products, despite the promises of successive Governments since 1977. Thank goodness, we have moved a long way to achieving the aim. However, many of those who have been infected would not have been infected had we been self-sufficient before.
  Many of the 1,200 people—such a tiny number, but we still cannot get it quite right—are ill and cannot work. Some have infected their wives. Some are children. All of the 1,200 are subject to the fear and prejudice—understandable though they may be—of the public. None of them can have life insurance to protect their families. None of them can have children without the risk of their children contracting AIDS. None of them can have endowment mortgages and none can be married or have a girl friend without the risk of infecting their partners. A total of 57 haemophiliacs have AIDS and 41 have died. That burden is in addition to coping with haemophilia, a life-threatening disorder. I had a haemophiliac in my class when I was a teacher. I know of the harrowing difficulties that he had to face every day of his life, without the extra problem of AIDS.
  The urgent need is for the Government to provide a special weekly benefit to provide life insurance for the dependants of sufferers and for mortgage protection for

  673
  the home. In addition, the Government should set up a discretionary fund to help victims and their families. That would go a long way towards easing the financial, family and social burdens suffered by such people.
  The Select Committee on Social Services recently accepted that compensation and special life insurance arrangements for haemophiliacs deserved careful consideration. Understandably, the Government are worried about the implications for negligence claims. I accept that the NHS was acting in good faith in providing blood products which, tragically, were contaminated. I do not believe that blame attaches to the Government. This is not a party political matter. The strength of feeling on both sides of the House is illustrated by the early-day motions tabled recently.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: What is the Government's reaction to the hon. Gentleman's representations on behalf of his constituents?
  Mr. Key: I am coming to that. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. An all-party meeting is to be held on Thursday to discuss this matter and representations are being made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  This is a matter of good government. I admired the speech by the Secretary of State in September when he outlined the inescapable choices for health care provision. We have been challenged by him to think the unthinkable. That is right. We all support, at the least, the safety net provision in the Health Service. When the individual cannot cope, try as he might, the state will uphold him with dignity. Where the market cannot provide, the state has a role.
  No insurance company can be expected to insure inevitable certainty. I challenge my right hon. Friend to take a bold political decision and to instruct the lawyers in the Civil Service to find a formula which will erect a ring fence to protect this special category.
  For this small, unique and tragic group the unthinkable has happened. It is unthinkable that any British Government should fail to respond. It is not enough to say that all the usual social security benefits are available for these sufferers. They are there to be tried, but the family to which I referred failed in its attempts to get the attendance allowance. The family has suffered enormously socially. The child was expelled from his playgroup by the democratic decision of the other parents. I can understand that, but what a tragedy it is. The child now attends a normal primary school where welfare assistants are with him from the moment he enters the school gates to the moment he leaves. He can never be left alone, so nighttime care is essential.
  In that respect clause 1 is important because it redraws the boundaries for attendance allowance. It will make it more difficult for such children and their parents to get attendance allowance. I urge my right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to the effects of that clause on haemophiliacs.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman also urge the Secretary of State to bear in mind that, because of the nature of haemophilia, haemophiliacs often belong to the same family? Three members of one family in my constituency are affected and the most appalling burdens are placed upon that family.
  Mr. Key: That is the point. The condition runs in families. Often two or three children in one family are affected, and that compounds the financial and social burdens.
  The normal social security arrangements do not necessarily apply to such families. They have to fight every inch of the way. I am busy supporting the appeal by the parents to which I have already referred. Have we all to fight that hard every inch of the way for every family who are unfortunate enough to have haemophiliac children who are HIV positive? What quality of life will a family have if they have to spend their entire time fighting for social security benefits? What effect will it have on the children?
  I salute the courage of those who are struggling to create a spring for their children when they know that they will probably never see a summer. Those families deserve, and must surely receive, compassionate treatment from our Government.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for two reasons. First, he raised an issue of enormous importance. I am sure that the Secretary of State was aware of the support from his own Back Benchers for the hon. Gentleman's speech and I am certain that we shall return to the issue on a number of occasions. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman deserves to be congratulated for keeping in order. That shows that he is a skilful parliamentarian.
  It is a convention to congratulate a Secretary of State when he comes before the House to present his first measure. I do not congratulate the Secretary of State this afternoon, not because of any lack of generosity of spirit, but because I believe that the Secretary of State himself is unhappy with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman bravely indicates his disagreement, but I shall illustrate, by pointing to five clauses, how the Bill is in direct contradiction to the Secretary of State's speech prior to the Tory party conference, about the welfare society that he wishes to create under his stewardship.
  In that speech the Secretary of State emphasised the need to encourage independence. I do not think that that is the whole of the remit for any welfare society, but it is important and therefore moves which take us away from that objective are serious.
  Let us examine clause 1 of the Bill which is intended to overturn the success of one of my constituents, Mrs. Moran, and the lawyer who helped her, Nicholas Warren. If we are to believe what the Government spokesman said to the Court of Appeal, that was a success, far in excess of what the Secretary of State has defined today.
  I thought, like the hon. Member for Salisbury, that the move would extend the scope of the attendance allowance to those people who are disabled and were excluded. We thought that it would provide extra help for people who are caring for others, accepting that where that help was not provided by the families, the state would provide the care.
  We must examine the Secretary of State's rhetoric about his wish to extend independence. If clause 1 is passed it will be more difficult for families to survive and to care in the community for people whom they love. It will be easier for them to crack up and easier to deliver such people from their families to the state for it to care for them.

  675
  I ask Government Members to think carefully about where the measure will lead us. They might not be affected by some of the cuts and changes of this Bill, but they will be affected by the move which I have just described. One of the great successes of the attendance allowance scheme is that it is not class based. It cuts across classes and helps all families who care for someone who needs care and attention, day or night. There will be pressure about the Bill at the surgeries of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I hope that that pressure arrives before Report stage.
  The next clause contradicts the Secretary of State's declared aim for a welfare state. It removes people's entitlement to unemployment benefit until they have paid even more contributions, and makes it more likely that they will be dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit. Again, we must ask the Secretary of State what his rhetoric means. The national insurance scheme is the means by which many working people collectively obtain security against the form of dependence that he wishes to reduce, yet the Bill will increase the number of people who have to seek means-tested assistance. Is that the Government's aim? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman was outlining in his speech before the Tory party conference?
  I wish to put a slightly different emphasis on the clause affecting the entitlement to benefit of 16 to 18-year-olds than did my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I would not oppose the change if the Secretary of State would assure us that the proposed training schemes will be of such a standard that we would be happy to go on them ourselves or to send our children. I would be less worried about the change if that condition were fulfilled.
  I should also be less anxious if people with a genuine grievance about the quality of their training had the right to an effective appeal and could appear before a tribunal before the punishment period of 13 weeks had expired. The Secretary of State may know that representatives of various London boroughs brought many claimants to the House today to brief us for the debate. One of the many urgent issues raised was the length of time that claimants must wait before their appeals are heard. In my constituency claims lodged in January are being heard this month. A welfare rights worker from Greenwich told us that the borough is now hearing cases which were lodged 16 months ago.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will satisfy us about those two matters. Will the YTS schemes be good enough for our families? What is he proposing to do about the appeal system so that those who have a genuine grievance about the quality of their training or who are in dispute with their employers who bully them—some employers do bully their employees, although most do not, thank goodness—can appear before an appeal tribunal quickly?
  The other important matter which causes the Secretary of State disquiet is the social fund. We know from leaks during the summer recess that, when he saw this provision in the draft legislation, he was so horrified about how it would work that he sought to have it removed. He was anxious that the social fund should not be cash-limited, as it will now be. I do not know whether the report in The Guardian by David Hencke was completely accurate. I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to correct the record, but I think that he has a good nose for
  676
  trouble and smelt the difficulties that he would face as a Minister, just as many constituents will have to face appalling difficulties if the provision goes through unamended. Indeed, he was so anxious to scrap the proposal that he was prevented from doing so only by the former Secretary of State when he said that the Government would lose face if the change were accepted. The Secretary of State may lose face, anyway. How much better it would be to lose face earlier in the day rather than later.
  I am not one of those who claim that he has lost face over clause 1. I am rather pleased with the announcement that he made about it, if I understood him correctly. I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question, and will be happy to give way so that he can respond. Are we clear that, before the Bill reaches the statute book, all those—not just Mrs. Moran—with claims pending for attendance allowance will be given a decision, and that they will not be caught by any retrospective legislation under clause 1?
  Mr. Moore: I thought that I had made the position clear—these are the pipeline cases. In all those cases it is important to use precise words because we are covering particular claimants. My hon. Friend the Minister will reiterate precisely the position when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Field: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Matters are becoming clearer to me and, therefore, to our constituents.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, the Government are penalising those who have provided for their retirement, who will lose the employment benefit for which they have paid. It is not a charitable handout; they earned it. The Secretary of State knows that if he was running a private company and tried to change the rules in this way, he would end up in the divisional court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and would no doubt lose his case.
  What message can we take from this debate to those who have put away money in the form of occupational pensions, who will be penalised by the Government? What do we say to those who come to our surgeries and say, "We have responded to the themes of the Thatcherite Governments, we have tried to look after ourselves, but in return we will lose our occupational pensions"? Those pensions will be taken into account when housing benefit is computed, will make them ineligible for supplementary benefit, and now they lose when claiming unemployment benefit. How do we address that group of our constituents on any of the questions of equity, but especially as the Government say that they want more not fewer people to be independent of the state?
  I end as I began, by saying that I am sure that this rather miserable little measure is not one of the right hon. Gentleman's choosing. He inherited it. The more that he tucked down his head today and tried to read through his speech, the more I became convinced that he was unhappy with it, as he should be. No other social security Minister has had to come before the House to introduce so many cuts in benefit and to make so few advances in the welfare state. Above all, he should be unhappy because in the summer he confidently outlined the structural changes that he wanted to make to the welfare state to encourage independence and lessen dependence. The sad aspect of

  677
  this whole ragbag of a measure is that, while it takes away many benefits from large numbers of people, it does not structurally alter the welfare state one little bit.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to address this House for the first time. I confess that I rise with some trepidation, but fortified in the knowledge of the kindness with which it is customary for right hon. and hon. Members to hear the first speech of a new Member.
  I take great pleasure and pride in having the honour to represent the constituency of Chelmsford and in succeeding its distinguished former Member Norman St. John-Stevas, who for 23 years diligently served the people of Chelmsford. I know that in this House he was renowned as a witty and formidable debater and his lasting achievements will be his championing of the arts and the Select Committee system that was established while he was a pioneering Leader of the House of Commons. This House's loss will be another place's gain.
  It is with pride that I would like to describe my constituency. It consists of Chelmsford itself, the county town of Essex, and a number of small, attractive villages ranging from Boreham in the north to Margaretting in the south. In its time, it has been the home of Sir Walter Mildmay—who served the great Queen Elizabeth I as a counsellor with distinction and loyalty—to Trollope, to Goldsmith and to Sir Nicholas Tindal, who became a celebrated chief justice and showed great courage in defending the hapless Queen Caroline.
  During the past 25 years Chelmsford has changed radically from being a small, quiet market town constituency—proud to have been the first town in the country to light its streets with electricity—to being the third fastest growing town in Europe. It has fortunately avoided the social problems that often accompany such rapid expansion. It ensured that, as the whole East Anglian region developed economically, it led and not followed. My constituents have played a vigorous and successful role in increasing the prosperity of the region. It is fortunate that, at less than 6 per cent., the rate of unemployment is well below the national average. That can be partly attributed to the fact that its local industries are broadly based. It mixes a strong manufacturing base with a thriving service sector.
  As some hon. Members may know, it is the home of the jewels in the crown of defence contractors. Marconi Communications Systems, in the teeth of fierce overseas competition, only two weeks ago secured a potential multibillion pound order to supply high frequency anti-jamming equipment to the United States navy. Marconi Radar supplies the Royal Navy with the Sea Wolf. Marconi has been in Chelmsford since 1899, and it was due to the innovative powers of the young Marconi that, in 1910, Dr. Crippen was arrested on the SS Montrose for murder, and in 1912 a number of lives were saved when a distress signal, designed by Marconi, was picked up from the stricken Titanic.
  The embryo of broadcasting took shape in Chelmsford in 1920 when Dame Nellie Melba broadcast the first song recital from the Marconi works in New street. In addition to Marconi being the largest single employer in my constituency, employing more than 8,000 people, there are
  678
  a number of other manufacturing companies—such as RHP, which provides ball bearings, and Britvic—which provide valuable employment.
  Chelmsford has the second largest commuting population in the country, with more than 12,000 brave people using Network SouthEast every day to travel to Liverpool street to work in the city and other parts of London.
  I want to say something about the National Health Service in Chelmsford. We have two excellent hospitals—St. John's, which is in my constituency and which is a major maternity hospital for the area, and Broomfield, which is just outside my constituency boundaries, but which provides health care for all my constituents. During the election many people to whom I spoke on their doorsteps said that they were confused by what they were reading in the newspapers about conditions in the Health Service. They had used the facilities in my constituency and had nothing but praise for the dedicated staff in the hospitals and the first-rate equipment that provides excellent health care. Frankly, they resented the attacks on the Health Service that were being made day after day. They, with first-hand experience through the care they have received, know quite condfidently that the Health Service is safe in the Government's hands.
  It was interesting that, on my visits to local businesses during the summer, time after time entrepreneurs told me that they could not find skilled workers to fill the many vacancies in the East Anglian region. They welcome the fact that the Government have placed great emphasis on training, especially for youngsters through the youth training scheme and the technical and vocational education initiative. However, many of my constituents have been bewildered that youngsters of 16 and 17 have been able to spurn school work and YTS and move effortlessly, and seemingly without shame, on to supplementary benefit. That is why I am sure many people in Chelmsford and especially employers, will welcome clause 4 of the Bill.
  Many of my constituents are concerned—as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—about the dependence mentality in modern Britain. I share and echo that concern. The Conservative Government are committed to providing material help to those who genuinely need it, allowing those who are under-privileged and less well-off—through no fault of their own—to share in the greater prosperity of the new Britain that we are creating. But we are also, rightly in my view, concerned that the taxpayers' money that we use for such acts of compassion should go to those in genuine need. I do not believe that the calculated choice of state-subsidised indolence qualifies as genuine need or should divert resources from more deserving cases, such as the elderly, the disabled, the handicapped and those who live in areas less fortunate than my own where the economic revival has been slower to occur.
  My constituents will welcome the commitment that the Government are giving to young people by providing for every person under the age of 18 a place on YTS except when they are still in full-time education or in employment. Just as important, my constituents realise that the proposals before us tonight provide a means of encouraging more youngsters to acquire skills and valuable work experience so that they are then better qualified to compete in the highly competitive jobs market.

  679
  I do not want to impinge on your patience any longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially as I am always mindful of an incident that occurred in the Chelmsford shire hall in 1938. That incident was the last recorded episode of spontaneous combustion when a garrulous lady blew herself into flames at a hunt ball.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Before I commence my speech, may I say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The hon. Gentleman has impressed us considerably with his first speech. I was especially impressed when he mentioned that unemployment in Chelmsford was 6 per cent. In my constituency it is 17·8 per cent., so I envy him that. He certainly told us a good deal about the history of Chelmsford, and I know a lot more about it now. I hope to visit Chelmsford one day. I feel that he will be a great asset to the House and I know that hon. Members on both sides will congratulate him on his maiden speech.
  The Bill consists of a series of mean-minded schemes whereby the Government can claw back money from those who need it most. It will also allow the Minister to alter the mistakes in the Social Security Act 1986. Clause 1 displays a particularly mean and small-minded attitude to the relatives of ill and disabled people. It undermines much of the progress that has been achieved and will, in the long term, cost the taxpayer more and cause even more problems for those relatives.
  Clause 1 is yet another example of the Government moving the goal posts when they have lost an argument. The clause reverses the effect of Moran v. the Secretary of State for Social Services. That case entitled a severely disabled person—for example, someone subject to epileptic fits and who requires the presence of someone on "standby"—to the higher night time rate of attendance allowance. If the Bill is passed, the person providing that supervision will be required to be awake for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals before the claimant can qualify for that rate. Precautionary supervision will not be enough.
  Clause 2 means that the reduced earnings allowance will be paid to people who have suffered accidents at work, or who have suffered from an industrial disease, and as a result cannot earn as much as they did before. Previously, REA was payable after retirement, but was frozen at the amount payable immediately before retirement. As I see it, clause 2 and schedule 1 will remove entitlement to REA after retirement if the amount of REA payable was under £2. For those whose REA was £2-plus, a retirement allowance will replace REA. That allowance will be 25 per cent. of the REA payable, or 10 per cent. of the maximum level of disablement pension, whichever is less. However, it will be uprated annually. Before the Bill is passed those entitled to REA after retirement will continue to receive it, but the amount of the payment will be frozen and not updated.
  I also note that the total amount of industrial injuries benefit, including REA, payable after retirement is to be cut from 140 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the maximum rate of disablement pension. Industrial death benefit is to be abolished for deaths occurring after 11 April 1988 with the higher weekly rate of IDB being restricted to the level of widows' pensions. The net effect of these petty cuts is
  680
  to reduce the protection available to victims of industrial accidents and disease, particularly after they retire. The cuts will be particularly felt by those who become victims towards the end of their working lives. The cuts will save only £3 million in 1989–90, rising to £11 million in 1990–91.
  With regard to clause 3 of the Bill, why is the Minister so anxious to change from primary legislation to regulations? Is it because it will allow the Minister to avoid future detailed parliamentary scrutiny?
  What of clause 4? It is the avowed aim of the Government, and particularly of the Secretary of State, to support individual independence, yet clause 4 will have the opposite effect. By removing 16 and 17-year-olds from income support the Secretary of State is forcing thousands of young people into dependency on their parents while reducing the amount of money available to their families for their upkeep from £19·40 a week to £7·25.
  What will happen to young people who have left home and are estranged from their parents? What will happen to those who left to avoid domestic violence of child abuse? What will happen to young single parents or those young people abandoned by their parents? They are able to claim income support only if they are specially exempt by the regulations; otherwise they are at the mercy of the Secretary of State—and we all know that his record of generosity is far from good.
  Potentially, clause 4 could lead to unimaginable hardship for some young people. Many young people will be forced to take up a YTS that is totally inappropriate or face a life of poverty. Some young people may even be deprived of any independent means and may be forced to turn to crime.
  By this legislation the Government wish to withdraw benefit from young people who choose, deliberately, to be unemployed. However, there is no evidence that that is a particularly large group. Regulations already exist to reduce the benefit of those who refuse to take up YTS or leave early for no good reason.
  Official figures show that between December 1983 and April 1987, some 25,502 people suffered a reduction in benefit for voluntary unemployment. Of those, the vast majority were early leavers from YTS, and only 2,225 had refused an offer. On average, each year 8,000 young people leave YTS early and only 750 people refuse to enter a scheme out of a total of 1·6 million people. In other words, the scope of the proposals is out of proportion to the size of the problem. The Minister is using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut.
  In clause 5, the contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit are made stringent—claimants will have to work continuously for a two-year period. This will seriously hit many young people, married women and seasonal workers, forcing them back to dependency on means-tested benefits. I am informed reliably by the citizens advice bureaux that this will enable the Secretary of State to save £10 million in 1988–89, rising to £70 million in 1990–91. But at what a shameful cost.
  In regard to clause 7, will the Minister tell us which other bodies will be entitled to arrange to pay benefits during an emergency? Will this be a back-door way of introducing privatisation?
  Clause 10 gives too much power to the Secretary of State, who will effectively be judge and jury on the running of the social fund. I am extremely concerned about the power of the Secretary of State when he seeks to allocate and reallocate funds as he sees fit. If he can reduce the

  681
  funds available without warning the social fund and social fund officers, he could put those officers in an intolerable position. They would be unable to advice claimants adequately because they would not be sure whether funds would be available to meet claimants' needs. Such a system would be completely inflexible and a recipe for disaster. Once again, there is potential for considerable hardship and distress if loans that are expected to be repaid are not repaid.
  I am extremely concerned that the money available for severe weather payments should be included in a separate budget from the social fund, because of the difficulty of predicting demand. It is vital that old people should be able to put their heating on in the extremely cold weather that we experience every year, secure in the knowledge that they will not be forced into debt. Why is there no provision for a right of appeal against the refusal of any claim for a severe weather payment? That appears to be extremely unjust.
  I congratulate the Minister, because the Bill is more carefully drafted than most, but many of the proposed cuts in national insurance-based benefits seem counterproductive; they will lead to an increase in claims for the means-tested income support. The Government clearly feel that this can be financed by the cuts in income support for 16 and 17-year-olds.
  There are so many cuts and retrograde steps in the Bill that will hit parents, children, elderly, disabled or sick people that we will most certainly be voting against it.
  5.27 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I, too, would like to offer my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on a graceful and competent maiden speech. He has a perfect right later to have a small celebration of his great success. One of the things I admired about his speech was his firm adherence to the tradition of the House—the oak of tradition which has given us the Galleries, the panelling, the seats and the Floor of the House, and much more—the confidence of hundreds of years. More of the new Members coming into the House would do well to follow the example of my hon. Friend by having a great respect for tradition.
  This debate reminded me of when I visited Disneyland some two or three years ago. In the haunted castle section I saw a picture which, when viewed from one point, was extremely beautiful, calming and even uplifting, yet from only two or three steps away was horrible, wicked, evil and cruel.
  I have listened with interest to the speeches of Opposition Members and I find them extraordinary. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has claimed that the Bill is intended to be used to claw back money from those who need it most. That is untrue. More money is to be made available under family credit for those who need it most, which is what we all want. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has spent his time in the Chamber this afternoon failing to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say. Some of his criticisms of the Bill were based on false conclusions and did not reflect my right hon. Friend's explanation of this measure. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, at least one or two of his worries would have dropped from his shoulders.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The hon. Lady claimed that the Government are being more generous to
  682
  those who are in greatest need. How is it that the parliamentary draftsmen have made the terrible mistake of identifying a net saving if the Bill's provisions are implemented?
  Dame Jill Knight: I have already said that public money should be directed to those who need it most. The Government should be given credit for directing more money to those who are in that position and for not paying out money to those who do not need it.
  It is time that someone spoke on behalf of those who have to foot the bill. The letters in my mailbag and the remarks that are made at my surgeries often reflect considerable anger that money is provided for people who do not need it. The social security budget is running at about £44 billion per annum, which is a tremendous sum. Those who contribute towards that sum from their hard-earned wages, salaries or whatever have the right to know that their money is being used to help those who are in need and not wasted on those who are not. Many who pay taxes are less well off than some of those who receive benefits. It infuriates the poorer taxpayer when he finds that he is paying out money to youngsters who choose deliberately to remain unemployed.
  It is right that the Opposition should draw attention to youngsters who are trying to get jobs but cannot do so, but it has been outlined clearly that the training system that is to be offered to them is such that if they refuse to take a place on it they will forfeit unemployment pay. What is so bad about that? The people of West Germany and other European countries have already introduced a regulation that denies unemployment pay to youngsters who choose to remain unemployed and not receive training. We always hear a great deal about other European countries when it suits the Opposition's book to make comparisons, but in this instance our European neighbours take exactly the same approach as ourselves.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If the hon. Lady wants to draw a comparison with West Germany, would it not be fairer to give a fuller account and contrast the level of youth unemployment and youth opportunities in that country with those in the United Kingdom and the attendant real value of benefits as a proportion of a national wage in West Germany as opposed to one here? I think that she will find that benefits in West Germany provide a considerable contrast to the paucity of benefit levels here.
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The Germans take the reasonable and sensible view that is being taken on the Government Benches, and surely that is right. He knows as well as I do that comparisons of welfare benefits between one country and another are almost impossible to make in a reasonably short speech.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend considered whether the Hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is aware that the amount paid in wages to someone undergoing tuition or an apprenticeship in West Germany is infinitely less than the sum paid in Britain?
  Dame Jill Knight: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is so aware. That is why I said that he could not get away with it.

  683
  I am most anxious that the need of industry for better training of young people should be met. It is unfortunate that at present it is not. I am pleased that part of what we are discussing will lead to an improvement in training.
  The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston, (Mr. Cook), who made his speech and rushed off for something that is doubtless terribly important, having left a most competent deputy in his place, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said that he was concerned that young girls would no longer be able to leave home unless they could prove that it would be difficult and perhaps unhappy for them not to do so. He gave the example of young girls being subjected to sexual harassment.
  The taxpayer expresses concern from time to time that he should be forced actively to encourage young children to leave home. Let it be clear that young girls who leave home are in considerable danger, as are young boys. Many of them come to London, and I do not wish to dwell on the fate that awaits some of them. It is true that taxpayers' money has actively encouraged this to happen in the past, and it is no bad thing if we are moving away from that.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Hon Lady will be aware that there are other emotionally stressful situations, such as those that are being experienced in Cleveland. It remains unclear whether, after a couple of months, there will be the entitlement to benefit. This is an issue that needs to be clarified and I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am all for clarification. I can assure the hon. Lady that the concern to which I have referred exists. It is no part of the taxpayers' remit to break up families or to assist young ladies who would be infinitely better cared for in their own homes. That is all that I am saying.
  We have heard a good deal about the attendance allowance. Again, this is an example of the Disneyland picture. I understood that the attendance allowance was introduced so that those entitled to it—those who need it to be looked after day and night—could be cared for adequately. The Government are not moving the goal posts. Instead, they are providing clarification. I have fought Governments over various welfare benefits in my time as much as anyone else——
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I shall finish the point that I am making before giving way again.
  It was always clear that the attendance allowance was introduced to assist those who need care day and night, and who, without such care, would be a danger to themselves or others. I have always understood that to be the nature of the allowance.
  I remember being greatly upset about the case of a constituent amputee who was unable to receive the benefit to which I thought he was entitled because his leg had been amputated one inch lower than the point that would have triggered the payment of benefit. I was angry about that man and fought his case hard. However, in the final
  684
  analysis it was not, of course, for me to say whether he should get attendance allowance; it was for the doctor who cared for him to say whether he could walk with the help that he had received.
  Surely it is not for us to say whether a person needs constant attendance. We give that responsibility to doctors by saying, "Does the patient need constant care? If so, the constant care allowance will be payable." As I understand it, that has not changed. However, the courts, as courts do sometimes, throw a different interpretation on what the rules were thought to be. I am afraid that I do not consider that the provisions are moving the goal posts in the way in which some Opposition Members appear to think.
  I turn now to the single payments that are to be abolished by the Bill. Considerable annoyance has been expressed to me by people who have seen entire flats, from the carpets and curtains to three-piece suites, being furnished by the DHSS. Many people have said to me, "I have a job making ends meet. I need a new carpet in my sitting room but I would not dream of asking the taxpayer to pay for it."
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
  Dame Jill Knight: No, I shall not give way. I must be allowed to finish my sentence.
  It seems that nothing will satisfy Labour Members other than more and more taxpayers' money being poured out whether or not people are in need. I advise those Opposition Members that many thousands of people in this land do not look to the DHSS to provide them with a new carpet. They save up for it in the normal way as all of us have done.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she join me in deploring the way in which the DHSS is deliberately delaying making single payments for furnishings, floor coverings, cookers and clothing in advance of the social fund so that hundreds of people in my constituency, and in others in inner urban areas, are denied any furnishings for their flats and are forced to sleep on the floor because of the incompetence of the DHSS, which is not making the single payments that it is required to make by law?
  Dame Jill Knight: It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to use his position in this House to attack good and efficient servants who try their best to carry out the remit that has been laid upon their shoulders.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Dame Jill Knight: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. If he has something to say he should say it in his own speech. Does he honestly think that anyone should be allowed to go along to a DHSS office and say, "I haven't got a carpet but I shall take a cheque right now, thank you very much"? I am afraid that I do not agree with that.
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Dame Jill Knight: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he does not know what he is talking about.
  Mrs. Beckett rose——
  Dame Jill Knight: No, Opposition Members must recognise that DHSS money is not automatically endlessly supplied to people who simply feel like asking for it. Where there is real need——
  Mrs. Beckett rose——
  Dame Jill Knight: Just a minute. Where there is real need the DHSS will pay. The hon. Gentleman is asking that there should not be any proof of real need, and on that point I cannot agree with him. I shall give way to the hon. Lady now.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has accused my hon. Friend of not knowing what he is talking about. I recommend that the hon. Lady read the fifth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government's own advisory body, which states:
  "some expenses cannot realistically be budgeted for from within present benefit rates."
  That was before the Government lowered the present benefit rates in their uprating statement the other day.
  Dame Jill Knight: That is nothing like what the hon. Gentleman said. That fact is that those who need help to furnish their flats or homes can get loans for special items under this measure. That is right when 95 per cent. of people pay their own bills and save up for what they need. Those people have the right to ask us in this House to ensure that we are careful with their money. I should add that those loans are interest-free, which is a very good thing.
  I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the abolition of the weekly additions—the heating, diet and laundry payments. I understand that most such additions will be covered safely by the new premiums. However, I wonder whether there is not a little break in the net. I refer especially to some disabled people who are newly reaching the stage of needing multiple additions. It is possible that they might be worse off. I know that the Government do not intend that those in real need should be worse off as a result of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the position of those few people who may be caught in that trap. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like it, but I shall speak whether or not they do.
  In a letter that I have received from the Maternity Alliance, and which I have read carefully, it is claimed that clause 11 cuts eligibility for welfare milk. The letter states:
  "Two hundred and twenty thousand families on low incomes and on family income supplement will lose the benefit."
  I turned keenly to clause 11 to see what it stated. Clause 11 is a perfect example of the art of the parliamentary draftsman in that few people can understand more than two or three words of it. However, it is absolutely clear from clause 11 that the Maternity Alliance's charge is not borne out. As I understand it, welfare milk for pregnant girls under 16 will be provided where the girl is part of a family that receives income support—I hope that the position is as I have understood it—and that if such a girl is a member of a family that is in receipt of family credit, the family will receive £2·55 per week instead, with which to buy the milk. Therefore, I cannot see that such alarmist suggestions are true.
  I was amused that page two of the letter states:
  "I would ask you to support an amendment either in Committee or at the third reading designed to protect the right of pregnant women and children to free welfare milk."
  I can remember a time when schoolchildren left their milk, especially girls, who thought that it was a fattening drink, in scores of bottles in the playground. Therefore, I am certainly not prepared to ask that all pregnant women or children always receive free welfare milk.
  686
  As I said earlier, if people are poor and cannot afford what they need I shall fight for them to my last breath. However, I shall not support those who are wealthy enough to pay for what they need getting it from the taxpayer who is poorer than them.
  This afternoon we have heard Opposition Members say that public money should continue to be paid to people who choose to be unemployed, who become unemployed by choice, and to people who, according to the doctors—it is not our judgment—do not need constant attention. According to Opposition Members, people who would be able to furnish their flats by saving up should instead be paid out of the public purse, and income support should continue to be paid to encourage youngsters to leave home. Opposition Members take an extraordinary view of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby in supporting the Bill most fervently.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Bill Michie: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his speech. I certainly enjoyed the first part and I believe that he knows a great deal about Chelmsford, although not much about youth unemployment and the problems that it brings to families and neighbourhoods.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made her usual controversial speech without facts and she certainly did not listen to some interventions. It was most unfair to make a little remark about my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) not being present. I do not know why he left the Chamber, but I must congratulate him on his foresight.
  It is less than a year and a half since we last debated a Social Security Bill. Now we have another Bill which not only amends the bad legislation of the past, but which, despite the Government's denials, undoubtedly introduces new cuts for those in need of help and those on the lowest incomes. It was said that during the passage of the Bill in Committee in 1986 at least 1 million words were spoken, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I who are here today will no doubt be present tomorrow to start yet another such batch of words.
  Mr. Corbyn: We still have our voices.
  Mr. Michie: As my hon. Friend says, we still have our voices. One million words are a great many words. I do not mind one million words being spoken, but I object to the fact that, despite them, we did not change the Government's mind and that millions of people are affected by the legislation.
  In Committee in 1986, a Conservative Member confessed that the legislation affected just about every family one way or another. All have old people, many have claimants and many have children and disabled people. Although this Bill is not as large as the 1986 one, it will have similar effects on many thousands of families. It makes me wonder what goes through the minds of Conservative Members when, last week, they endorsed millions of pounds to subsidise the underwriters of the City and at the same time drafted legislation taking money from the poor, the vulnerable and those least able to defend themselves. I wonder what goes through their minds when they remove the rights and entitlements of

  687
  people who cannot articulate for themselves, unlike so-called underwriters who can and do so with greater influence. To take money from the poor is unjustifiable; to introduce new devious regulations which make it harder for those who cannot defend themselves to claim and receive entitlements is unforgivable.
  It is not easy to make claims on behalf of constituents, especially claims for attendance allowance. I am glad that there seems to be some movement on that for those who need that allowance. It is difficult enough now, without any change in the regulations to make it more difficult. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends have fought cases for attendance allowance and lost them under the present legislation, never mind the new. I fought a constituent's case for two years and believed that we were near to winning it, but, unfortunately, he died a week before the final decision was to be made. There is no compensation for that. His widow had looked after him for two years while we argued the case. He was 60 years of age and only five stone in weight. I do not know what we must do to prove that someone is ill and needs constant attention. It is bad enough now, never mind in future.
  Young people and families will be severely affected by clause 4. Obviously, the hon. Member for Edgbaston thinks that none of the needy will lose money, only skivers. I object to her suggestion that some of my constituents who will lose money under the Bill are skivers. They are not skivers by any stretch of the imagination. They have told no lies and their needs are great. But Government Members cannot recognise those needs through the glass of a champagne bottle, as they are viewed in some Tory constituencies.
  It is a con to say, "We are extending family allowance. Aren't we generous?" We all know what the legislation is about; it is about saving money. The Government will pay £7·50, which is a frozen sum, and avoid paying income support. That is what the Bill is about and there is no argument about it. I would have more respect for the Government if they said that, instead of claiming that they were helping all those in need. Once again, the unemployment statistics are being massaged as the legislation ensures that 17-year-olds must stay at home with their parents, whether or not they are welcome and whether or not their parents can afford it.
  The Bill will cause massive hardship to many families who are already suffering from unemployment and deprivation, particularly those in our northern cities. Therefore, I hope that the Government have the heart to change it and protect families in greatest need.
  As usual, married women will suffer yet further cuts or at least have some of their privileges, rights and opportunities removed under clause 5. Entitlements will be more closely tied to full-time and continuous work. Obviously, that is not the case for many women who take time off for maternity leave or to look after the family. That always seems to be the job of women and I hope that one day we shall change that. Then, of course, more men in the House will moan about the lack of opportunity in legislation, such as in this Bill.
  Each clause and schedule will be closely examined and opposed in Committee, whether it deals with attendance allowance, family credit, income support for young people, the reduction of the earnings allowance, industrial injuries and benefits, or a range of other benefits, such as
  688
  severe weather payments and pensions which will also be adversely affected by the Bill. Those of us who serve in Committee will challenge all the Bill's propositions, if necessary line by line as we have done previously, to protect the poor, the old, the needy and the disabled in our constituencies. They are not getting a good enough deal now, without our taking further moneys from them.
  5.57 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am bound to express several reservations about the Bill, but I shall not elaborate on them clause by clause because I hope to have the honour of contributing in Committee or during the remaining stages of the Bill. That will provide an opportunity to ask Ministers to expound precisely on the impact of aspects of the Bill which are causing me and others considerable anxiety.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I consider the philosophy of the Department in introducing the Bill and the forecasts of what future policy is to be on the whole problem of the welfare state. I should like particularly to consider the economic factor, the relationship with the tax system and the social factors involved in the whole business of the redistribution of income. If we do not have a clear idea of our strategy we may make serious mistakes in our tactics.
  Obviously, the Government have done a great deal to redress the balance between energy within the economy and inertia. We want to release the dynamic forces which will make the country more prosperous and find ways of getting rid of the various problems which prevent people from achieving the best for themselves and their families in creating wealth and making themselves independent citizens.
  In the higher income ranges, the Government have released an enormous amount of energy and they are very much to be praised for that. There is still more to be done. I should like to see the end of higher rate tax altogether. I said that as long ago as 1971 when I served as a member of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill and I have not changed my view. It must be counter-productive to bring pressure to bear on the people who are best able to create wealth and use the best discretion in the way in which they handle their investments. However, that is by the way.
  At the lower levels of income, the Government have unfortunately not been successful in overcoming the problems of inertia among very large numbers of people. Britain today has the look of a country where there is not a large number of people available to do low-paid work. That, of course, is not the case; it is an illusion which we have brought on ourselves because our system for the redistribution of income is so very unsatisfactory.
  I want to give the House some figures. The figures for the number of people claiming supplementary benefit clearly shows us that there has been a steady increase in the size of what one might call the static element in the economy—the people who are not or should not be contributing anything in terms of the creation of wealth. The Library has very helpfully provided me with the figures today. In November 1977, the number of supplementary benefit claimants was 2,991,000. By 1981–82, the figure had risen to 3,725,000. By February 1986, it had gone up again to what one might call the disastrous figure of 4,938,000. Those are claimants; I am not referring to their dependants. But by February 1987,

  689
  the provisional figure for those claiming supplementary benefit had gone over 5 million, the exact figure being 5,008,000.
  We do not know what the figures for the current year or next year will be. There is good reason for hoping that the figure will have declined somewhat, partly because of the extremely welcome reduction in the number of people unemployed and partly because a certain number of people are now able to rely on their occupational pensions in retirement instead of having to claim supplementary benefit in order to have enough to live on.
  However, if we want to gain a measure of the true extent of the static element in our economy, we have to look at the total number of people, including claimants and dependants, in a single figure. That figure has risen from 4,759,000 in November 1977 to a figure that we now believe must be over 8 million, possibly as much as 8·5 million.
  The steady rise in the number of people engaged in the redistribution of income industry handling that number of claims and looking into the number of people who need such support, is adding nothing to real wealth. I do not know the size of the redistribution of income industry, but when we take the private sector into account as well, including all the small employers giving a lot of time to the calculation of PAYE, the industry must employ at least 150,000 or perhaps 200,000 people. Between the lot of them, they are not adding a single pound to the actual output of the nation.
  I want to consider the total number of people in Britain on income-related assistance before I leave that point. I do not think that the House has really appreciated the impact of an answer that I received from the Department of Health and Social Security on 14 April 1986. My right hon. Friend who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I welcome his appointment there—stated that for the most recent available date, then 1983:
  "an estimated 14 million people were living in families receiving supplementary benefit, housing benefit or family income supplement."—[Official Report,14 April 1986; Vol. 95, c.271.]
  What a very discouraging environment for so many of our young people, if we think of the number of young people among those 14 million living in a state of dependency on means-tested benefits of one kind or another.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been greatly praised by members of all parties because she has revived people's ambitions to take work in order to better themselves and free themselves from dependency. All Conservative Members would wholly endorse that. We also believe in the Prime Minister's maxim that people should save, be thrifty and careful with their means so as to build up a nest egg for themselves and their dependants.
  When the Prime Minister says those things, she touches a chord to which everyone responds—or should respond; but among the 14 million people receiving means-tested benefit there will be a very large number who unfortunately will calculate that what the Prime Minister has to say about work and thrift somehow does not apply to them, because if they take the sort of work which they are likely to be able to obtain—which will provide rather low wages—they calculate that by the time that they have paid for decent clothes to maintain their appearance at work, travelled to work and met other incidentals, the family will be less well off than if they continued to draw benefit and remained in idleness. Of
  690
  course, a very large number will also calculate that if they enter the black economy—continuing to draw benefit but also doing something from time to time to get a little money from here or there—they will be doing the best thing of all for their families.
  It is not a satisfactory social or economic situation to hold such a large number of people in dependency on means-tested benefit; and it is a matter for regret that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his decision this year not to uprate child benefit, has tipped another 40,000 or so people on to the heap who are already dependent on means-tested benefit and no longer able to class themselves as first-class citizens.
  When one considers the social factors of a nation where such a very large number of people are dependent on means-tested benefits, what would one expect to find? What would we expect to happen when so many people have to see themselves as having a subordinate status? Child allowances, whether in the form of child benefit or the allowances to people claiming supplementary benefit, are really rather modest in relation to the actual cost of raising a child in decency. So one would expect to find an increase in the number of broken marriages. One would expect to find a rising number of children in one-parent homes. One would expect to see anxiety showing up in the consumption of tranquillisers and other drugs that actually undermine people's capacity for work and also lead them into criminal activities.
  The persistence of evidence shows that subordinate status corresponds to the likelihood of below-average maternal and infant health; and of course we know from the perinatal mortality figures that social class is a very important corresponding factor in ill health. One would expect to find low school achievement where there is a high proportion of people living in conditions where they are obliged to rely on income support—for example, in the inner cities where the depressed tone of home life is reflected in below average academic performance of children and their participation in school life.
  One would also expect to see a rise in crime. One would expect people desperate for more money from one place or another to indulge in handbag snatching, burglary, mugging, trading in stolen goods and the growth of the black economy, as they are stimulated by low income and the sight of plenty enjoyed by the more fortunate members of the population. One would expect to see a look of stagnation in our inner cities where a large number of people are of subordinate status and do not find it worth while to take regular paid work.
  Of course, those are the things one would expect to find where there is such a large number of people dependent on means tests; and that is, indeed, exactly what we do find. The Government are faced with a serious problem.
  Does the Social Security Bill help? Is the strategy of the Department right? I am bound to say that I do not think that the Bill significantly helps. In some ways, it seems to me that it actually makes matters worse; and I am not confident that the Department's strategy is right.
  The existence of this large subordinate element is particularly adverse for women in Britain. One reason is that the tax system is not yet based on a unisex principle. In addition, when women take unskilled work, which is what is often offered to them when they belong to this unhappy subculture, they are generally very low paid. However, when families break up it is the mother who is generally left with the responsibility for the children. and

  691
  the extra allowance that we pay for one-parent families does not go very far when the rent has to be paid and the children fed and clothed.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I look a little more deeply at the implications of what is now known as targeting, which a few years ago was called selectivity and before that used to be called the means test. It is not just the alienation of a large part of the population or the reluctance to work or save that creates this large mass of inertia that is holding back the performance of the economy. There are other problems which we must analyse and find solutions for.
  Let us consider for a moment the reluctance to claim which people feel when benefits are targeted via the means test. We know that child benefit achieves almost 100 per cent. take-up but unfortunately we have learnt that the take-up of family income supplement is as low as only 50 or 60 per cent. Although we hope that the new family credit will achieve a higher take-up and confer more benefit, it will not hit the target 100 per cent., and no one claims that it will. Therefore, for a large number of people, targeting will miss the target. That is tragic when one considers the plight of very low-income families with children to look after.
  People do not claim partly because of pride, and those are possibly the people whom we respect the most. At the other end of the scale, failure to claim is also due to incompetence, such as the inability to read and write or an inability to find one's way in English, as with many of my own constituents. Equally, the reluctance may be caused by the struggle of claiming, the hours of waiting, the humiliation and the circumstances in which people must make their claims in the DHSS offices. It might also be calculated that there are certain snags, because if people take work that does not last very long, they may find themselves in a very bad state thereafter.
  Another problem about targeting which the Department should take into account is that it does nothing for people who are just above the level at which they are entitled to claim. Those people deserve our consideration. I am not happy about this emphasis on targeting, and I therefore wish to comment on income support in relation to income tax and national insurance.
  It is rather an anomaly that we have brought down income tax to 27p for investment income, but for the working population income tax still stands at 36 per cent. That is because national insurance has been virtually taken into the income tax system and taxation therefore bears more heavily on those who work for their income than on those who depend on income from investments. It is almost as if we have got it the wrong way round; but that is how it is.
  There are three grounds of entitlement for positive payments in our income support system. The first is proof of need, which is the basis for entitlement to supplementary benefit and the other means-tested benefits. There are also the national insurance contributions, and they are substantial. The national insurance contribution is a heavy tax to pay on top of the standard rate of income tax. It produces entitlement to the basic pension, to unemployment and sickness benefit and to certain other national insurance benefits which people are able to claim without proof of need, but on evidence of their contribution record. The third positive payment
  692
  system is the citizenship entitlement. That allows people to claim child benefit. There can therefore be positive payments on grounds of need, on the record of one's contributions or simply because of citizenship. The Department has never really clarified its intentions as to which of those grounds of entitlement it favours.
  There is another hidden welfare state that does not produce positive payments but which achieves the same result by negative allowances. That is the hidden welfare state which is contained within the income tax system. A single person is allowed to deduct from his or her income £2,425 before paying tax, which, if my calculations are right, has a net worth of about £900 a year at the present standard rate of tax. However, a married person is entitled to claim £3,795 before paying tax. That is a difference of £1,370, and, with income tax at 27p in the pound, I calculate that it puts the married person at an advantage of £370 a year over the single person on the same income.
  We have now abolished the child tax allowance, which was a further way of differentiating between people with different family circumstances and which originated at the end of the 18th century with William Pitt. We now pay a child benefit instead, which is worth £377 for each child. A married person therefore pays £370 less tax than a single person on the same income, and a married family with a child gets a further £377 of net spending power for each child in the family. Had the amount been raised this year in accordance with the principle that we apply to the married person's benefit and extended to child benefit on the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula the benefit would have gone up by another £16 a year. One might say that, in taking that sum away from 6,750,000 mothers—or whatever the number is this year—my right hon. Friend is not depriving them of a great deal; but his decision has caused much concern both in the House and throughout the country because of the implications of his gesture at this time.
  I should like to think that it is simply that, in the struggle with the Treasury for resources to improve other parts of the welfare services, my right hon. Friend has been obliged to make a concession of some kind. I do not know whether that is true, but I would like to think that it is. In that case, one can possibly make an excuse for his having decided not to uprate the child benefit this year because currently other things are being introduced that will add to the outflow of money to people who need it. I hope that before the Bill leaves the House it will include a provision that adds child benefit to the other benefits hidden within the tax system and which go up with the cost of living in line with the Lawson-Rooker-Wise principle.
  Child benefit is something that we should discuss, because, although an uprating is not in the Bill, there are references to it in the legislation. I do not think, therefore, that I shall be out of order if I say a few words about it. Let me run quickly through some of the arguments used by people who have not thought very deeply about child benefit. They say that it churns money around—takes it away and hands it back—and that that is not a practical method of administration. In fact, child benefit is by far the cheapest benefit that we have. No case work is involved, it can be handled by computers, and it is paid every week regardless of the ups and downs of family income. The churning argument does not convey very much meaning in the computer age.
  It is also said that the rich do not need it. When I tackle people who say that, they always admit that tax cuts for

  693
  wealthy people are good and are part of Conservative strategy, but they do not like the idea of rich people drawing child benefit. There are 4 million people who pay more in tax than they receive in child benefit, and for those 4 million it preserves the differential in favour of the family with children, compared with married couples with no children to support. Cutting the real value of child benefit, or cutting it out altogether, would narrow or eliminate the differential between families with children and those without. I cannot see why we should take away that differential in any particular area of the income scale.
  Dame Jill Knight: Has my hon. Friend had the experience, as I have, of receiving communications—in this instance, it was a telephone call—after last week's discussion? A couple told me that they drew their child allowance only twice a year, to take on holiday as an extra sum. Does my hon. Friend approve of that?
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Some people make their own choices about how they handle their family budgets, and we believe in people making their own choices. What we need to know is whether the children in that family are deprived or neglected when their parents spend that money on a holiday. How people handle their own budgets is a matter for convenience and discretion.
  What is undeniable is that, if there were no child benefits—particularly for the 2·5 million who receive more in child benefit than they pay in tax—there would be much more deprivation among children. They would be expected to go on wearing shoes that do not fit any more for longer, or to eat carbohydrates instead of protein. There would be other reasons for the living standards of our child population being depressed. Some parents may not feel disposed to give up things to which they have become accustomed, and may feel that the children do not need quite as much as they would have spent on them if there had been more money coming in.
  However, to say that child benefit should be ended because some parents waste it is like saying that education should be stopped because some children waste their time at school. I do not know whether the memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) goes back as far as mine, but I can remember what children looked like in south Wales during the depression, and they do not look like that in Britain now. One reason for that is that mothers have child benefit—albeit a small amount, but money in their own handbags—and the vast majority of women, thank God, spend it for their children's benefit, because they really care about their children. Of course, it is easy to find examples of people who do not, or do not seem to. That does not mean, however, that the 99 per cent. of mothers who are careful, and who do their best for their children, should be forced into deprivation.
  Cutting down the real value of child benefit, or cutting it out altogether, narrows or eliminates the differential between families with children and families without them. I do not see why that differential should cease to exist for people who are better off. The Lawson-Rooker-Wise principle, which I think has been adopted on both sides of the House, preserves in real terms the differential between single people and married couples in the tax system. But it is not quite true to say that, when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor proceeds to a further cut in the standard rate of tax, he leaves the hidden welfare state with the same relationships between the different elements.
  694
  Cuts in the standard rate actually diminish the difference. A cut in the standard rate across the board is to the greatest advantage of single people, because they do not receive the tax concessions that are given to married couples. I believe that this year's tax cut was to the advantage of single people to the tune of about 50p a week. That is not very much, but another 2p off would make it £1 a week, and so on, by comparison with married couples on the same income.
  One of the main objectives of tax cuts is to overcome the poverty trap, and to give the subordinate community more incentive to work. However, the percentage of total income taken in income tax from the national average wage of a married couple is now down to only 16 per cent. There is not much scope left for further large cuts in income tax. The idea of bringing in initial low bands of income tax, which is sometimes recommended, is, I believe, administratively impossible and a nightmare.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that the average amount of income tax payable in those circumstances is 16 per cent. What matters, however—and this is relevant to what he said earlier—is the marginal rate of tax. That is what gives the disincentive about which we are so concerned. The marginal rate, if we take into account the base rate of income tax and national insurance, is 39 per cent.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. It is true that, for those entering work from part of the static society, the marginal rate of tax is likely to be 36 per cent. if they are receiving a worthwhile wage. But it is not that element that creates the poverty trap and fences people in. It is the loss of benefit that hits them suddenly and creates the disincentive to improve their lot.
  Of course, I welcome reductions in taxation—who would not? However, if we are to do something about the enormous, inert mass of people in a subordinate position, it is on the benefit side that we need fresh ideas. Tax cuts go to the entire population, and are not targeted at the people whom we are trying particularly to help. That is why we need to concentrate on what happens to the benefits if we are the do something significant about the poverty trap.
  I know that many people say, "This is a humiliating handout. It would he nicer if we could stand on our own feet and not be dependent on this kind of credit." I am not certain how many people feel humiliated about drawing child benefit, but nearly 100 per cent. take it up, and the people to whom I have just referred, who are on modest incomes and are just above the benefit level, really need it. I do not think that we should think only in terms of the parents who are able to send their children to Eton. Among the 4 million who draw child benefit but who pay more in tax than they receive in benefit there may be 1,000 Eton parents. However, the vast majority of couples with two children, particularly those on the national average wage or thereabouts, actually value the £14·50 net of tax that is coming in each week, especially as it is paid directly to the mother.
  I believe that the right solution is to revive the concept of national insurance. The way to do that is to look again at what used to be called the tax credit system, but which I now prefer to call the basic income guarantee. I do not

  695
  want to delay the House with too many further arguments, but I should like to say a few words about the basic income guarantee.
  I think that we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that in no circumstances will we force people through the bottom level of destitution so that they are unable to sustain life on the incomes available to them. If we insist that everyone must have some kind of basic income guarantee, let us try to provide it a little better than we do now. I do not like the strategy of the Department in this Bill, which seems to be to chivvy the inert element in the economy into the productive area by reducing the amount of benefit in certain cases, and restricting the eligibility for benefit in others. That is an unsatisfactory approach in a society that is able to look forward confidently to further tax cuts for those on the productive side of the economy.
  Surely it would be better to give the millions who are now obliged to depend on means-tested benefits, with the resulting loss of self-respect and motivation, a helping hand. We should let them have an opening, an opportunity to choose to work to better themselves or to put savings aside for their dependants that is not, substantially, a fruitless waste of effort.
  Let me read a few words from a document published in 1979. It states:
  "Our social security system is now so complicated that even some Ministry officials do not understand it. Income tax starts at such a low level that many poor people arc being taxed to pay for their own benefits. All too often they are little or no better off at work than they are on social security.
  This was one of our principal reasons for proposing a tax credit scheme. Child benefits are a step in the right direction. Further progress will be very difficult in the next few years, both for reasons of cost and because of technical problems involved in the switch to computers. We shall wish to move towards the fulfilment of our original tax credit objectives as and when resources become available. Meanwhile we shall do all we can to find other ways to simplify the system, restore the incentive to work, reduce the poverty trap and bring more effective help to those in greatest need."
  That is from the Conservative manifesto for the general election of 1979. Another paragraph in the same section reads:
  "We welcomed the new Child Benefit as the first stage of our tax credit scheme. One-parent families face much hardship so we will maintain the special addition for them."
  I could also read from the White Paper "Proposals for a Tax Credit System" that was published in 1972, but I shall confine myself to two sentences of it. It says:
  "The tax-credit scheme cannot of itself offer a complete solution to all the problems of poverty. But to those within it, and this includes the great majority of people at work and everyone in receipt of the main national insurance benefits, it offers the prospect of a system of family support which would be easier to understand than the present one, which would provide its benefits largely automatically and which, being integrated with the tax system, would extend the benefit of tax allowances to people who have insufficient income to pay tax."
  That White Paper was studied by the Select Committee on tax credit that was headed most ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark). I am sorry that he is not here now. Perhaps I might remind the House of the conclusions of his Committee after it had studied the tax credit proposals. It said:
  "The effect of the scheme is to give the same treatment to the very large majority of the population, with scope for
  696
  differential treatment by giving selective help to those in greatest need and levying differential taxation on the highest paid."
  Had I been my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South I should not have added that. But the report continued:
  "It would spread the effects of fiscal policy systematically. It should therefore be adopted; but in recommending the scheme we are not endorsing any particular level of tax, or credit or relativity. Selection of these levels will remain the essential ingredient of the policies of the Government of the day."
  The objections to tax credit, brought out subsequently to those reports, were twofold. The first was that it would cost too much. The second was that the computers were not ready to do it. On the question of what tax credit would cost, a tax credit scheme—or basic income guarantee—could be pitched at any level of benefit and at any level of tax. It could be made revenue-neutral. It could even be introduced in such a way as actually to reduce the outgoings from the state.
  On the question of computers, the right way to introduce computers into the redistribution-of-income industry is to do the thinking first: to decide what it is that we want computers to do, now that they are available, and then to start on the choice of equipment and writing the programmes. We see in today's edition of The Guardian the tangle that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to cut through by new policies covering computerisation; but there is also a separate programme for the computerisation of the pay-as-you-earn system.
  Much of the work that is being done by these two teams working on computerisation, who are taking all these years to get on with their job, is entirely wasted, for the simple reason that the thinking has not been done first. They are therefore trying to produce a system that will afterwards be a flexible one, rather than to set up a system that meets the requirements that have been designated from the start. If we had started in 1979 on a revenue-neutral tax credit scheme, it could now have been working for several years and we should not be faced with the huge inert mass of unemployed and unhappy people that we have at the present time.
  A later occasion may possibly be the right one for me to make specific recommendations as to the way in which a super-simple basic income guarantee could start to be introduced, even in the next Budget. If they are interested in it, I shall be glad to write to my right hon. Friends.
  The effect of the reform in the first place would be to reduce administration dramatically on the tax side for small employers and large employers too, and also for the Inland Revenue. There would be savings on the benefit side, too, because I am convinced that if we offered a basic income guarantee which was worth even half of what people are entitled to claim in supplementary benefit, hundreds of thousands would exercise the choice not to claim the balance of their supplementary entitlement but would prefer to go out into the world of work, keep their savings and avoid the humiliation of having to claim means-tested benefit.
  There would of course be very substantial savings if we could induce a large number of people to rely upon a small basic income guarantee instead of the full amount of their supplementary benefit. Those savings could then be put into making the level of the basic income guarantee more satisfactory and a better stepping stone for those who want to lift themselves out of dependency. I believe that a basic

  697
  income guarantee would give hundreds of thousands of people the opportunity take work without breaking the law and without hardship to their families.
  I shall say no more at this point, but I hope that what I have said in this speech will he noted by my right hon. Friends. I hope that some study will be made of the possibilities of a different strategy from the Department's present course, which I am convinced is socially divisive, economically most unsatisfactory and truly disastrous for Britain.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: In my work with the disabled over the past eight years I have seen the consequences of this Government's policies on the disabled. Far from targeting the cash on the disabled, the Government have tightened the screw.
  The biggest losers under the new Bill will be new disabled claimants. Some of them will lose over £3,500 a year. Severely handicapped people living at home, perhaps with elderly parents, will lose help to heat their baths and rooms; they will lose assistance with laundry costs; they will lose cash for warm replacement clothing; they will lose a contribution to their diet; they will lose any special money for blindness. There will he a net loss of £72 a week over our present system, after payment of the new income support and the highest rate of the new severe disability payment.
  Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided a platform for the profiteers. Today the Government had the chance to provide a platform for the poor, but instead of doing just that the Chancellor will in future years save over £42 million from 360,000 disabled people who need help with laundry. The Government will save £7 million from 69,000 incontinent disabled people who need baths. The Government will save £5·5 million by cutting out of the present system 63,000 handicapped people who need clothes. As part of a £400 million cut, the Minister will save a further.£49 million from 164,000 especially disabled people who receive a special heating addition.
  The Chancellor's savings do not stop there, because 2,800 kidney patients will lose over £1·5 million as part of an £80 million cut, while 4,500 housebound handicapped people will lose up to £48·70 a week—and more. Furthermore, 35,000 blind people will lose up to £7·70 a week to save the Chancellor £2·5 million. Moreover, 6,000 people with relatives in hospital, whom they are visiting, will lose £1·5 million, as the fares to visit their relatives are withdrawn.
  The Prime Minister claims that she wants to set people free. Where is the freedom for the senior citizens who will be unable to heat their baths or their rooms? Where is the freedom for the blind householder who cannot afford a telephone? Where is the freedom for the kidney patient who cannot afford a proper diet? Because of this measure, they have no freedom. Sadly, that is how this Government apparently want it to be.
  6.38 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). How anyone can make sense of them, after the Government have spent £2·5 billion more, in real terms, since 1979 on the disabled, I do not know. The Government have spent 70 per cent. more, in real terms, than they did in 1979, and they intend to
  698
  spend an additional £60 million next year on the disabled. It does not therefore seem to be worth while to take up the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  However, I wish to comment on the speeches of two other previous speakers. I refer, first, to the new hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). As has been said already, he made an exellent maiden speech. I went to speak for him several months ago, and I was very impressed. On behalf of his 12,000 commuters, he was busy travelling up and down on the train in an effort to improve the services that the commuters receive. Clearly, virtue was rewarded, and we welcome him to the House.
  I want to speak in more depth following the remarks of my extremely distinguished hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). He has studied the question of income maintenance and family support in great depth and with great knowledge. He appreciates the profound questions involved. He is not somebody who considers short-term political interest; he has a real understanding of the incredibly complex network of social security benefits and tax supports. He spoke with feeling about the need for a basic income guarantee.
  The area with which I am most concerned is the danger of failing to co-ordinate a strategy for the support of children. He rightly said that we provide benefits for those in financial need, for disablement and on terms of citizenship. Many of us feel that as a country we rightly support the vulnerable in their old age and in their youth and that, rather than a preoccupation with the redistribution of income between families with or without children, it should be seen more in terms of income maintenance throughout a lifetime.
  For those hon. Members who are concerned about whether families are genuinely in acute financial need when receiving child benefit, I should like to make two comments. First, many people receive mortgage interest relief regardless of their financial need. Indeed, the better off one is, the more one benefits from that. I am aware of no plan to turn mortgage interest relief into housing benefit.
  Secondly, it is increasingly said that there is a profound distinction between receiving a benefit and a tax relief. I appreciate that the ground has changed in this respect. Over a decade ago there were those who argued—I was among them although I was not at that time a Member of the House, but I spoke to a Committee in the House—about the importance of changing child tax allowance to child benefit. Nobody begrudged the well known Duchess of Westminster, who always seems to be mentioned in this context, having some financial recognition for her children, but it was argued that it was not right that she should have a greater recognition for her children than others. The child tax allowance meant that her needs were more greatly recognised. Therefore, child benefit, which gave all children equal financial recognition, was more appropriate.
  We now live at a time when the social security budget is running at £44 billion. Understandably, every benefit is the subject of the greatest scrutiny. There are some who argue that benefits should be provided only to those in financial need—there are many other examples where benefits are allocated in terms of citizenship or disablement, but I understand the point—and if that is an overwhelming view, I would reluctantly support the reintroduction of child tax allowances. Now that the rate

  699
  of tax has been reduced so dramatically, the powerful arguments that appertained 10 or 15 years ago are no longer so powerful.
  I would argue, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, that child benefit has the advantage of having no stigma attached to it. It is easily taken up and provides a continuous form of income. In his statement last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understandably decided to give much more financial help to low-income families because, as he argued, 3 million children would not benefit from the increase in child benefit. Therefore, he rightly gave more money to income support and family credit. The same process takes place when those families want to go to work. It is only by having child benefit that they do not then suffer from the poverty trap.
  A further point in support of child benefit is that low-income families are frequently in a state of uncertainty and change. It is easy when describing a benefit structure to envisage every family as being financially static throughout the year. It is easy to imagine them like a photograph in which people are earning a certain amount and their responsibilities and accommodation are static. The reality for low-income families—my first job was working for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) doing a research project on the budgeting of low-income families—is that they are in a frequent state of flux. People's domestic situations change, their income changes with longer or shorter hours and their accommodation changes. Therefore, child benefit provides the stability that is required.
  I feel deeply and strongly that it is high time that 16 and 17-year-olds were no longer able to claim benefit in their own right. Many teachers have complained to me that it is difficult to secure regular attendance at school from 16 and 17-year-olds or those even younger. They have complained that it is easy and enticing for youngsters of that age to leave school, do nothing and claim social security—[Interruption.] I am interested by the reaction of Opposition Members, following the remarks of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I urge Labour Members to study the New Statesman with more care. A month ago the writers of an article on the youth training scheme said:
  "The youth training scheme … has emerged with real potential for improving education and training beyond 16 … Yet it too has been largely scorned by the left. There are signs that belatedly some of these schemes are now gaining support in Labour circles. As one of the most senior officials of the Labour-controlled"——
  Ms. Armstrong: Will the hon. Lady accept that part of the agrument in the article was that we should encourage more young people to stay on in full-time education by making sure that they have the income support to enable them to do so? Will she acknowledge that that is the thrust of the argument?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady is not correct. The article is arguing strongly in favour of staying on at school. I will read a few more sections to make the point. The article does not mention income support for those staying on at school. Perhaps the hon. Lady would prefer to find separate ammunition for that point.
  The article goes on:
  700
  "As one of the most senior officials of the Labour-controlled ILEA told us 'You could argue that the MSC has done more for improving the opportunities of working-class children than the ILEA has ever done.'"
  On the matter of staying on at school after 16, the article said:
  "Labour has been guilty of an abysmal lack of vision for the mass of pupils. The contempt for the YTS of many on the left has been proved wrong."
  We have seen further examples of that today. It goes on:
  "YTS, as Tessa Blackstone remarks, is the first time this country has really done anything to help working-class kids after 16."
  The article went on:
  "When Neil Kinnock spoke in the north in the election campaign, he deplored the fact that at 16 school leavers couldn't get jobs. This may be understandably extending sympathy to youngsters, but it is a naive and dangerous message. In our knowledge-based economy, there will be no decent jobs for the uneducated in future: Labour economists all say the same—everyone needs a broad-based education till at least 19, and throughout life. Young people must not be encouraged to think that they should be getting work at 16. On the contrary the message should be—as it is in France—that staying on is the norm."
  Mr. Robin Cook: I assure the hon. Lady that her commitment to further education is most welcome. In the light of that commitment, will she address her mind to the problem of the estimated 30,000 16 and 17-year-olds attending further education colleges under the 21-hour rule who will be unable to do so if the Bill is enacted because income support will be withdrawn? Does she think that a youngster who is studying for two A-levels would be better off spending his time on a YTS course? Is that the best future that the hon. Lady can offer that teenager?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I would be the first to argue that there could be more rationalisation of the mechanisms for providing assistance to those in further education or for those who are receiving education maintenance allowances. The basic point of the Bill—which the electorate thoroughly appreciated in the election campaign—is that there can be no justification for offering 16 and 17-year-olds who are living at home an allowance to stay at home except in exceptional circumstances or while they are bridging the gap before a training scheme.
  I spent many years working with youngsters who, after the age of 16 years, were turned out from the education system with nothing to show for it. The YTS has been a most remarkable achievement. My hon. Friends will have visited many projects in their constituencies; a month of two ago in my constituency I visited a YTS course on computer familiarity. I saw there youngsters who had failed or been switched off by school, yet they were interested and motivated by training and learning and developing their skills. The former chairman of the MSC pointed out that of the 400,000 youngsters who had taken part in the scheme in a given year, their average level of achievement was one CSE.
  Much more can be done. If we look at the factors that lie behind poverty, three essential aspects emerge: first, staying on at school or training; secondly, the length of time that a man or woman spends in his first job; and, thirdly, family breakdown.
  The remainder of the Bill is concerned with tidying up or rationalising measures. Mention has been made of the social fund. I welcome its establishment. The single payment system had become the tail that wagged the social security dog. It was unpredictable, unfairly distributed

  701
  throughout the country and consumed the most ludicrous amount of time. I support adequate basic scale rates and a social fund that can do the job properly. In terms of providing assistance to those low-income families who are in work rather than just dependent on benefit—as will now be possible for maternity payments and funeral grants—it is a great step forward.
  Again, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington about creating a dependency culture.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the hon. Lady accept that the vast majority of people who apply for a single payment do so because they are poor? Under the social fund rules they will be invited to incur a debt to the social fund. Those poor people will now not only be dependent on payments such as those that they can get, but on repaying a debt that, because of the nature of their income, they cannot afford.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Those who are on low incomes fall into different categories. Some will be on a low income in the long term but others will be on a low income between like events, so the facility to obtain a loan will be extremely welcome. I do not agree with the hon. Gentlemen that there is a coherent link between those who claim single payments and those who do not. It is by no means the case that those who are the hardest up claim the single payments. Those who claim the single payments know how the system works. Above all, the social fund provides a more flexible method of response.
  Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Lady accept that if Parliament sees fit to set up any benefit system, it is only right that everybody should apply for it? If some people know the ropes and can apply, all credit to them. We should be trying to create a system where everybody receives that to which they are entitled. Tory Members oppose child benefit because it has a high take-up rate and is easy to understand.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Gentlemen can be addressing his remarks to me, since I argued in favour of simplicity and proper scale rates, not a Legoland welfare state.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that for two years running many of my constituents applied for £800 for identical items and were startled when they did not receive that amount for the second year?
  Mrs. Bottomley: That is one of many similar examples. The point is the vast amount of time that is taken up in administering the single payment system.
  As to the concern that the welfare state builds up like Legoland, where one benefit is added to another, I noticed that in the social security uprating statement there were no fewer than seven Hansard columns of benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke of the needs of haemophiliac families, and I have a similar example in my own constituency. I debated as to the right way forward if we are not to tack on yet another benefit or yet another case to that total for which one needs not only to have stayed on at school for two years but another 10 years to master the different intricacies of the system.
  I applaud the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that he is determined to rationalise further our welfare payment system. My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the thriving
  702
  economy and welfare of our people depend on wealth creation rather than wealth distribution. The Government can afford to pay £44 billion on social security, with yet further increases, because of their success in mastering the economy. Pensioners, for example, have experienced an 18 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979. This, and more, can be achieved because of our economic success and growing prosperity.
  6.57 pm
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: At the beginning of her speech the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West said that she admired the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) because he was not guided by short-terrn political interests. If the hon. Lady admires the hon. Gentleman for that, I am sure that she will vote against the Bill because it is guided by one thing only—short-term political interest.
  I thank the hon. Member for Kensington for his clear and deep understanding of the importance of the child benefit legislation. He clearly understands the importance of paying that benefit to women so that they can use it directly for children. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench were listening to that point.
  I emphasise another point that the hon. Gentleman made—the importance of people who fall just below the benefit level. Many people in my constituency—many widows who receive a pension from ICI or British Steel—fall just below that benefit level and, as a result, experience hardship. I hope that the Ministers were listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In view of his detailed and caring understanding of the Bill, I hope that they sign him up for the Standing Committee, to which he would make a useful and valuable contribution.
  I emphasise the importance of placing the Bill in the context of social security legislation that has gone before it. The Government and the two previous Tory Governments have constantly attacked the social security system. I shall give a couple of examples to support that statement: the failure to uprate child benefit in line with inflation, and the cut in the single payment that was introduced in August 1986. The hon. Member far Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who was quick to criticise other people for not being in the Chamber, has now left. She clearly failed to understand the importance of single payment benefits and of the cut that has been experienced since August 1986. That is a cut of 50 per cent. The number of people receiving single payments fell from 2·4 million in the first six months of 1986 to 1·25 million in the first six months of 1987. That meant an expenditure cut from £173 million to £49 million. If the hon. Member for Edgbaston had stayed, she would have seen the importance of those single payments.
  The Government's changes to the attendance allowance in clause 1 show right at the beginning of the Bill the type of cuts that the Government want to impose on people receiving some kind of benefit. Those who are already severely disabled will face greater difficulty.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has also left the Chamber, made a useful contribution about the importance of considering haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS. A 16-year-old teenager in my constituency is in that position. I hope that. Ministers listen carefully to hon. Members when they talk about the importance of considering other people in this category.

  703
  It is important to realise exactly what the Secretary of State is doing with clause 1. He is reversing the decision reached in the law courts in the case of Moran v. the Secretary of State for Social Services in March 1987. The Government lost a point in the courts, so they are moving the goal posts by changing the law. Many people will be handicapped by this change. The lawyer speaking on behalf of the DHSS in the Moran case listed the groups who would be handicapped.
  Mr. Robin Cook: He was a Government lawyer.
  Miss Mowlam: That is absolutely right. That Government lawyer said:
  "It will affect, the Secretary of State believes, potentially a large number of claimants, because it affects not only epileptics which is the case before your lordships, but probably also diabetics, mentally retarded children, hyperactive children, asthmatic children, children with cystic fibrosis, certain cases of elderly people who suffered severe attacks of confusion, certain cases of strokes, and, in some cases, haemophiliacs possibly."
  That is a detailed list of the claimants who will be affected by the changes in clause 1. It is interesting that the Secretary of State has said that 1,200 people will be affected, whereas during the Moran case the Government talked about many thousands. Clearly, there has been a jiggling of the figures. As soon as we have a law that is implemented sensibly and humanely, thereby benefiting those whom it was intended to assist, the Government change the rules.
  I want to talk about clause 4 only briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has already spoken eloquently on the importance of this clause for young people. No young person over 16 and under 18 will be entitled to income support unless, to quote the Bill,
  "it appears to the Secretary of State that severe hardship will result to that person".
  The Secretary of State will decide what is severe hardship. Ironically, when the Social Security Bill was discussed last year in Standing Committee a Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell)—proposed an amendment along the lines of clause 4. The then Minister for Social Security—the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—spoke against it, saying:
  "Unless or until we could offer an absolute guarantee that a training place would be available on the day that a young person left school or otherwise became entitled to supplementary benefit, or unless we were prepared to leave such a young person without support until a place was available, there would have to be a surrogate social security system to fill that gap."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 4 March 1986; c. 547.]
  The previous Minister for Social Security clearly understood the problems that a clause such as clause 4 would present.
  The Cleveland county careers office cannot guarantee every 16 or 17-year-old a place on YTS. It is impossible. This must mean that the Government are now prepared to leave young people without support. I should like the Minister to offer us an alternative explanation, if he can, because Cleveland can see no alternative.
  The previous Minister for Social Security was keen to say that certain disabled youngsters who received financial assistance would also be ruled out under the earlier legislation and would continue to receive assistance. We are interested to know exactly which disabled young people in the 16 to 17-year-old grouping are involved
  704
  under this legislation. Clearly, there are people who are disabled to such an extent that they would fit the category without any question marks being raised, but many other young people with limited disabilities would have trouble on some YTS schemes. Will they fall into the net? Will they receive any income support as a result of this legislation? Will the Minister force managing agencies to take on young people? Unless employing managing agencies are forced to do so, there will be no places available.
  I should like the Minister to look closely at lines 17 to 20 of clause 4(2) on page 4 of the Bill which imply that every young person who claims entitlement on the ground of severe hardship will have no right to appeal to a social security appeal tribunal if refused payment. This will happen because there is no right of appeal against the decisions of the Secretary of State. Is there a chance for young people to appeal? If not, much of what we have heard from the Government about individual freedom, choice and rights is clearly empty words meant for elections and not for the next four years of Government.
  Clause 10, with schedule 3, refers to cold weather payments. There is a tendency among Conservative Members to talk before elections about pensioners when it suits them and after elections to forget pensioners—because there are only two pensioners in the Cabinet—and the problems they face. Must we wait, as we waited last year, for 700 old people to die of hypothermia before we look more carefully at cold weather payments? Must we wait for about 35,000 old people to die from cold-related illnesses, as they did last year, according to Age Concern'? Must we wait for the Government to look at those figures before they consider the payments in more detail?
  Of course we are pleased that cold weather payments are subject to regulations and are not discretionary, but we should like the Minister to consider a number of aspects. Why is the trigger level at 0 deg C? Is that too harsh? Should it be relaxed? Is the present £5 payment sufficient, or is it, as many Labour Members think, totally inadequate to meet the bills that many will face in cold weather? Are the cut-off points—under two years and over 65 years—right'? Many would argue that up to four years or over 60 years are much more realistic levels for the operation of cold weather payments.
  I hope that Ministers have listened to the arguments on the Bill's details which have been put in all honesty by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Edgbaston emphasised the problems that she perceived and referred to people receiving benefits as though they were scroungers or skivers. The hon. Lady clearly does not hold surgeries or talk to her constituents. Week in, week out at my surgery I see constituents who do not have a bed to sleep in, who do not have cooking utensils. These people are not skiving or using the system; they are desperately in need. The Government should realise that and understand the problems that people face. They should also look again at their arguments. They say that they do not want to create a culture in which people depend on benefits. The way to change matters is not to start fiddling around with benefits and depriving those at the bottom end of the scale but to look at the labour market and to start to create the jobs that will solve the problem for them.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Mrs. Mowlam). She made

  705
  an able and telling speech, although I did not agree with much of it. Her speech was not as controversial as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) appeared to have been—judging by the noise from Labour Members. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), I hope to pour some healing balm upon the debate and introduce another thoughtful note.
  I welcome the Bill in general because it continues the reform that we have set out to achieve of the vast and virtually incomprehensible mass of benefits that we have inherited, created by ad hoc decisions over 40 years. Clause 4 in particular, seems to constitute a return to the form of social insurance envisaged by Beveridge. Beveridge had it in mind when he put forward his scheme that if there were an unrestricted right to benefit there would be a danger that people would come to rely upon it and that it would sap their desire to work in certain circumstances. Beveridge said that after three or four months of unemployment, work should be offered instead of benefits. I remind Opposition Members—in case they missed the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that Beveridge wrote:
  "for boys and girls there should ideally be no unconditional benefit: their enforced abstention from work should be made an occasion for further training."
  Mr. Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of William Beveridge, will he accept that Beveridge also wrote "Full Employment in a Free Society" and was concerned about the elimination of poverty through the creating of jobs in society? The Government, on the other hand, are hell-bent on punishing the poor for being poor and on making the poor pay for the Government's impoverished economic policies.
  Mr. Hamilton: It seems to me that the only punishment being inflicted on the poor in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is that they should have him as their representative, and he should remember that Beveridge was writing in rather different times on the subject.
  Conservative Members contend that the development of the benefit system and the tax system that it has spawned to pay for itself has been a major cause of Britain's relative economic decline—certainly until 1979. The changes that we are now making will reverse that state of affairs. As we know, unemployment is falling faster in this country than anywhere else in the developed world.
  While the Bill is good in itself, we need to go further and faster. I confess to having been disappointed by the results of the Fowler reviews. We have not done enough to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington refers to as "churning", but which I prefer to describe as a vast exercise in carrying coals to Newcastle. We take money out of a person's pocket with one hand, only to put it back with the other. During the process, we have to pay administration costs and we create disincentives because of the high levels of taxation necessary to finance the process.
  We should go further to reduce benefits and taxation while continuing to provide a safety net for those in real need. We need only look at the tables produced in "Economic Trends" from time to time. The latest figures on the effects of taxes and benefits on household incomes were published in July 1987. The figures show the extent of this exercise in carrying coals to Newcastle. The net
  706
  beneficiaries of the welfare state in its present form are those on very low incomes indeed. The vast majority of people are paying for their benefits, and more than paying for them. Even for those on incomes as low as £3,500 a year—in some cases less—the break-even point is reached. It is not sensible or desirable to have a system in which probably as many as two thirds of the population—and perhaps as many as three quarters—pay for benefits out of their own pockets.
  If we are to achieve our objectives of becoming a low-tax society, with all the economic incentives that that implies, we must deal with that problem. We need an even greater dose of radicalism than we have had so far. I suggest that we should be radical in the opposite sense to that recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington in relation to child benefit. I appreciate my hon. Friend's arguments about basic income guarantee. We have rehearsed those arguments in the House on a number of occasions and I am always interested to hear what he has to say. However, I do not believe that a basic income guarantee can deal with the fundamental flaw in the present system, which is the necessity for the disincentive of higher marginal rates of taxation in order to provide universal benefits. It would be much better to seek to target the benefits more directly and distinctly. In that sense I take the opposite view from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington about the form of social security that we require.
  Others of my hon. Friends—most of whom are not in the Chamber at the moment—take a different line again. They are what we might call the Contras of the Conservative party. They inhabit the jungles and thickets of places such as Old Bexley and Sidcup and Chesham and Amersham and from time to time they come out in their guerrilla war against the Government to take pot shots at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others. Last week I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) call my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following his statement about child benefit, "insensitive". I can think of some of my right hon. Friends to whom the word "insensitive" might apply but I have never thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fell into that category. For my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, distance is lending disenchantment; the further he moves from the Government's general aims the more difficult he finds it to understand what we are trying to achieve.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham arid Amersham is joined in his opposition to the Government's aims by Opposition Members who have now become the yuppies' greatest friends; not only do they want to help the American underwriters, Goldman Sachs, but they want to provide child benefits for those on the highest incomes. They want child benefit to be increased so that the person paying income tax at the marginal rate of 60 per cent. derives the greatest benefit, equal to about £18 a week. They also want to increase it in such a way that the poorest people in this country gain nothing. That is what the effect of an increase in child benefit would be because for every increase in child benefit, other income-related benefits would have to be reduced.
  Child benefit, which now costs £4·5 billion a year—10 per cent. of the social security budget—is a vast weight upon the economic, productive system of this country. The cost is equivalent to 4p on income tax., to a

  707
  20 per cent. increase in all personal allowances and to 4 per cent. on VAT. Child benefit is extremely poorly targeted. As has pointed out, the Princess of Wales is a beneficiary of child benefit. I know that Labour Members—with the exception of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—support the monarchy, but I had not realised that their enthusiasm for the institution went so far as to require the subsidy that it receives to be increased.
  Child benefit is poorly targeted and the majority of its funds are wasted. The standstill in child benefit rates this year is welcome but I should like to move towards its abolition and to a complete rearrangement of benefits for children in poorer families.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: How would the hon. Gentleman reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and others who say that the level of take-up for family income supplement, for example, is so pitifully low that we must be missing many that we wish to target? How will he overcome that?
  Mr. Hamilton: The child benefit system should remain a cash benefit for those below the income tax threshold and become an allowance for those above the threshold. I would gross the benefit up so that the individual subject to taxation is as much in pocket as if he had a cash benefit. We would then concentrate on reducing the marginal disincentives to work inherent in the present high tax rates.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I respect my hon. Friend's arguments, although I do not agree with him at all. I wonder whether he is anxious to reduce the rate of tax, the benefit of which goes mainly to single people and simultaneously to end the distinction between the money we leave in the hands of married couples and in the hands of married couples who also have children to support. What is wrong in thinking that we ought to help people with children to support and not put them on the same basis as other couples without families?
  Mr. Hamilton: Not having children myself I cannot be expected to support my hon. Friend in that. The system that I propose would not work in quite the same way that my hon. Friend envisages. I am suggesting a child tax allowance, grossed up for tax purposes according to one's marginal rate of tax. It will not be spread among childless couples, but targeted upon couples with children.
  Mr. Kennedy: Even if that were to work—I am sceptical—will we not lose the beauty of the child benefit system which is that it finds its way directly to the caring parent? Nine times out of 10 that person is the mother. Would not that safeguard be lost under the hon. Gentleman's proposal?
  Mr. Hamilton: One cannot generalise in that way. I know that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) is gallant but not everyone behaves in that way. To say that some fathers might not be so careful to protect their children's interests whereas mothers would is not borne out by experience. There is no way of knowing what the difference in take-up rate would be, but I cannot see any logical reason for saying that fathers are less likely to be solicitous of the interests of their children than mothers.
  708
  My proposal would go a long way towards restoring some of the essences of the welfare state. After all, in 1949 a married man with two children had to earn twice the family allowance trigger point before he paid any tax at all. Today, that married man with two children qualifying for supplementary benefit pays income tax on 25 per cent. of the supplementary benefit rate. That is ludicrous. People designated as being way below the poverty line are subject to income tax. It cannot be right to preserve a system under which people receive benefit from the state as well as being major contributors to the income tax system.
  I believe that low taxation will encourage people and help to relieve absolute poverty. That is what we are about in the Conservative party. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a thoughtful speech recently, the welfare state has been with us in a variety of forms for a long time and Conservative Governments have made considerable additions to it over the years. I believe the evidence to be incontrovertible. The low tax economies around the world have the highest economic growth and therefore the highest ability to relieve poverty in its absolute sense.
  A report published by the World Bank compares the growth rates of high-tax and low-tax countries. Twenty countries were examined. The low-tax countries had a 7·3 per cent. growth per annum in the 1970s compared with 1·1 per cent. in high-tax countries. There was a 9 per cent. growth in employment opportunities in low-tax countries compared with less than 1 per cent. growth in high-tax countries. As the report said, higher rates of economic growth allow an expansion of the tax base, which generates increased revenues to finance the more rapid expansion of expenditure on Government services such as defence, health and education.
  I do not accept that reductions in taxation will be obtained at the expense of those on low incomes. Lower taxation is the engine of growth, which gives us greater resources with which we can then reduce the burdens of the less fortunate in our society. We shall never bring tax rates down sufficiently so long 'as we continue with universal benefits such as child benefit.
  I applaud the Secretary of State's speech on 26 September on the future of the welfare state. He said:
  "Dependence in the long run decreases human happiness and reduces human freedom. We believe the wellbeing of individuals is best protected and promoted when they are helped to be independent, to use their talents to take care of themselves and their families, and to achieve things on their own, which is one of the greatest satisfactions life can offer … welfare measures, if they are to really promote economic and social welfare, must be aimed ultimately at encouraging independence, not dependence."
  I believe, therefore, that a reduction in the universality in benefits with a reduction in the tax rates which are necessary to pay for them, would bring about that independence to which my right hon. Friend addressed himself in that speech. Many people have been made more dependent because high taxes have removed their independence. Many millions of people have been pauperised by the welfare state which was designed to assist them. It has achieved the opposite.
  The Speenhamland system has been reborn in the second half of the 20th century. Not only does the system sap the individual's independence, it fails to provide adequately for those in need. A good example is the death grant with which the Government have dealt. It was a miserable £30 which did not even begin to pay for the cost

  709
  of a funeral. It was a universal benefit to which everyone was entitled, but now we can provide for those in real need at a distressing time without spreading the benefit among those who do not need it. I should like that principle to be extended to other areas of the welfare state.
  I welcome the Government's broad theme in the Bill and in last week's statement on upratings. I particularly welcome clause 4. It represents a welcome step in the right direction even if it applies at present only to those in the 16 to 18-year-old group.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) if he was saying that the change proposed in the Bill represents a change in the principle of the social security system. When the present system was introduced in the 1940s, 15-year-old school leavers were never entitled to claim national assistance immediately, as it was payable only from the age of 16. We propose to introduce a provision applied during the regime of a Labour Government. In effect, we are returning to a system which Beveridge advocated and which the Labour Government of the late 1940s accepted.
  We are not making a huge jump in principle by making the change in clause 4. It is a common-sense measure which will be widely welcomed throughout the country. It can never be right for us to subsidise deliberate idleness, nor can such idleness be right for those who may be tempted to be sustained by it. Young people have everything to gain from training and career development. They have nothing to gain from simply sitting on their backsides on the dole, for whatever reason. The measure is designed to reduce that temptation and, therefore, it is greatly to be welcomed.
  We have made enormous advances in the introduction of training for young people since 1979. We should never forget that virtually nothing was done for the training of young people until this Government came into office in 1979. The youth opportunities programme and later the youth training scheme, now extended to two years, have benefited more than 1 million people since 1983.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) appears to believe that training began only in 1979. Does he know anything about the industrial training boards, which produced very good trained people, yet were abolished by this Government? Does he not know that we had an excellent apprenticeship system which paid the rate for the job as the young person grew older?
  Mr. Hamilton: We discussed the arguments for industrial training boards in the last Parliament. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wishes to introduce a 1 per cent. training levy on employers to extend the industrial training board scheme, although those boards were not as successful as the hon. Lady might think. Many employers who had to pay for the boards did not regard them as cost-effective. Previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have done little in this direction, so this Government deserve credit.
  Since 1983, I million youngsters have benefited from the youth training scheme and more than two thirds of them have gone into jobs, further education or other training schemes. We must be concerned about the other one third. That is one of the reasons why we introduced this clause. During the debate on the Employment Bill tomorrow, we shall be able to fit the remaining pieces into the jigsaw and that will greatly benefit young people.
  710
  We are making this change in the interests of young people. If young people have come to the job market in recent years with exaggerated expectations which could not be met and, as a result, remained unemployed unnecessarily, that is possibly due to their diminished means of fulfilling those expectations. That, in turn, is a result of the failure of our education system, particularly in the deprived inner-city areas, not least because of the anti social attitudes of the Labour councils which control those areas, but I do not intend to go into that matter.
  I welcome clause 5 because, under its provisions, we shall return to the principle of social insurance which Beveridge supported and which dates from the beginning of the national insurance system in the early years of this century. Unemployment benefit was never intended for those simply taking early retirement. I know from personal experience, however, that that has been a widespread feature. Indeed, my father retired early and availed himself of unemployment benefit because he was entitled to do so under the rules of the scheme. Millions of people have done that. In my constituency in 1979, ICI employed some 20,000 people, a great many of whom retired early under the excellent ICI pension arrangements. It is probable that thousands of them availed themselves of unemployment benefit, although they were by no stretch of the imagination unemployed.
  Mrs. Beckett rose——
  Mr. Hamilton: I am reluctant to give way again because I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
  The Government are restoring the national insurance system to the purpose for which it was founded. Far from what the hon. Member for Livingston said, we are not moving away from the radical scheme of Beveridge—rather, we are completing the scheme that he envisaged. I would like the Government to go further and faster down that road and reduce the burden of the welfare state and reduce its scope so that it covers only those in real need.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It is clear that parsimony and meanness are the hallmarks of this legislation. Indeed, the main objectives are to reduce public expenditure and take away people's rights. It was well planned, because, in a letter to me of 11 February 1987, the former Under-Secretary, the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), said:
  "In recent years the rate of increase in the number of single payments has grown out of all proportion to the numbers on benefit. For example, in 1985 over 4 million single payments were made at a cost of around £308 million—increases of over 40 per cent. in numbers and costs in that one year alone. No Government responsible for proper planning and control of expenditure could regard this level of growth without concern."
  The Minister stated that the cost of single payments in 1985 was £308 million. Yet this Government, defying the Social Security Advisory Committee's advice that the social fund was unworkable without an expenditure of £350 million, are now budgeting for £200 million. Vie assume that that£200 million will include loans to be repaid to the budget by poor people. They often live in miserable circumstances—the sort of circumstances apparently unknown to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), whose interventions were tragedies dressed as comedies.

  711
  Some 6,000 people claiming attendance allowance are having their cases determined by the Government, yet, taking the April 1988 uprating into account, the Government will save only £60,000. If epileptic, diabetic and other disabled people—some 300,000 of them—were to claim, the cost would be only £3 million in a social security budget that this Government claim will cost £44 billion.
  The Government must make up their mind why they are reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal. Are they saying that the judges misunderstood the law, or are they saying that the law was wrong? If the former, why did the Government not appeal to the House of Lords? I suggest that it was because the House of Lords may have given the same answer as the Court of Appeal.
  I must raise a point about young people and income support. The infamous Lord Young said that young people are lying in bed in the morning. I wish that he would come to my constituency in Liverpool and utter those words. I do not know what the Merseyside police bill would be, but I would take a chance on it. Another Tory who addressed the Tory party conference at Blackpool said that people in Liverpool and on Merseyside were not trying to find work. He said that if only they would come down the motorway to Bournemouth, where he lives, he would show them how to get work. They took him at his word, hired a coach and went to Bournemouth. That Tory had to have a police cordon around his house because of the wrath of the Merseyside people. When he was approached, he had to withdraw his comments. When the Merseyside people went to the jobcentre in Bournemouth, they found that there was no question of finding a job easily or of obtaining accommodation.
  The Government recently commissioned a survey that showed that the number of unemployed school leavers who preferred to go on the dole rather than remain on benefit amounted to only 0·2 per cent. In other words, more than 99 per cent.—on the Government's own figures—are eager to find work and training. If this measure is passed, the Government will have to find an extra 100,000 YTS places, at the very least, to accommodate all those unemployed school leavers who require assistance. Currently, 70,000 to 80,000 school leavers have not yet had the offer of a YTS place. Will unemployment benefit be ended after the first, second or third offer?
  Many young people want to undertake real courses. I know that some YTS courses have their attributes, but there can be no doubt that many are regarded by young school leavers wanting additional educational training as nothing more than Mickey Mouse courses. Indeed, some of them have been proved to be just that. Some youngsters opt to study part-time courses at colleges of further education. At the college that I attended before I came to this House, numerous young people were studying for three A-levels. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned two A-levels, but it is possible to do 18 hours a week—six hours each on three A-level subjects. Those young people are gainfully employed studying to improve their prospects, but they will now suffer through the further education cuts.
  Many people who are remote from colleges of further education opt for a correspondence course. What will happen to them? Will their unemployment benefit be
  712
  docked because they have taken a course with the Rapid Results College or some other institution? Is that the Government's answer to those who really want to find work and do far from lie in bed all day? This is supposed to be the Government of choice, but what choice will they offer those young people? How will they police the system? Will there be an army of snoopers? I am sure that that is on the cards.
  The social fund proposals remove the right to additional help for the major expenses not covered by weekly benefit. Even under the present system of single payments, many people find it difficult. They rely on single payments for the provision of, for example, a gas cooker. They are often forced to go to a second-hand salesman who would sell them a cooker that might be dangerous or might break down in a relatively short time. Now, under the three-year rule introduced by the Government's regulations in August, those poor people often have to go without any cookers.
  The social fund payments will not be administered in an objective way. Indeed, there will be no payments, only loans. Such loans will be given to people who are in dire need and who will have great difficulty in finding a way to repay them. Those loans will depend upon the subjective decisions of managers and social fund officers at local DHSS branches. If the social fund budget is to be limited to £200 million, will it include the amount owed by claimants on outstanding loans? There is nothing in any statement that I have seen to refute that suggestion. In fact, only £60 million has been set aside for grants, yet the social fund is supposed to cover maternity and funeral loans as well.
  There is no doubt that when more and more poorer people are forced by the cash-limited social fund to look elsewhere—indeed, there is a provision in the Bill that they should go to other bodies first; voluntary organisations have been mentioned—they will go to local authorities. Those local authorities are already hard-pressed. Indeed, at present local authorities are unable to stand by their present statutory and legal obligations.
  Let us consider the position of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). As Minister for the Disabled in September 1977 he said:
  "The interpretation of the law"—
  the 1970 Act—
  "is, of course, a matter for the courts. But I am advised that local authorities have a clear statutory duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to meet identified and accepted needs in respect of all the services in Section 2.
  I am further unequivocally advised that services given under this Section may not be withdrawn in the absence of a reduction of need. This means that any authority which sought, for example, to withdraw a telephone provided under the Act, solely on the grounds of financial expediency, would he breaking the law."
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. He has accurately reported the legal advice given to me as a Minister. Is he aware that, from all my inquiries, the advice given to my successors is in no way different? Voluntary organisations, often for disabled people, are increasingly concerned about the impossible position in which local authorities have been placed.
  Mr. Wareing: That is my point. Even in the present circumstances of stringency imposed by the Government

  713
  —withdrawal of rate support grant, penalties, the targets and the expenditure levels that have been set by central Government—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is not being enforced by councillors. They are being made to break the law by the Government. Such councillors will break the law on a larger scale as more and more people are forced to go to social services departments as a result of the Government's reversion from single payments to the social fund. There is no doubt about that.
  This is the Government who stand aside and let councillors in Liverpool be disqualified and surcharged for trying to enforce the law with regard to social services and housing policy. This is the Government who supposedly believe in the rule of law, but will sit back and allow local authorities simply to defy the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
  The social fund is to be forced upon us with social fund officers asking intrusive questions of old and disabled people. Confidentiality is likely to be breached as local authorities and voluntary organisations are asked to provide information to social fund officers. All that will happen if this legislation is allowed to go through.
  One thing is quite clear: the words of the former Secretary of State for Social Services will not be carried through if this measure reaches the statute book. On 3 June 1985 the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said:
  "We shall ensure that the structural changes"—
  in social security—
  "will not result in cash losses by those who are now in receipt of supplementary benefit."—[Official Report, 3 June 1985; Vol. 80. c. 49.]
  When we look at the Government's proposals for the cash-limited social fund, who can any longer believe what was said then?
  During the general election campaign many of us will remember a famous party political broadcast by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It certainly stole the day as regards election broadcasts. However, there was another election broadcast that I remember very clearly. It began with the tune "I Vow to Thee, My Country". We then saw the former Secretary of State for Social Services and the Battle of Britain fliers going off in their Spitfires and Hurricanes and the hazards that the people in those years—45 years ago—suffered during the second world war. The patriots on the Conservative Benches—who no doubt will be wearing their poppies and attending cenotaphs on Sunday—might bear in mind that many of those who, 45 years ago, were desperately fighting for the liberty of the British people, are precisely the sort of people who will now suffer as a result of the institution of the social fund and the attacks upon poor people through this Bill.
  The measure before us represents a continuation of this reactionary Government's punitive expedition against the poor. the old, the unemployed and the disabled. The Government speak with a large majority, but we, on the Labour Benches, represent the large majority of people who are poor and disadvantaged. We represent the conscience of all that is decent in our society. We will fight this unworthy Bill clause by clause in Committee. Our opposition must not stop there. We must make common cause with all those organisations and individuals outside this House. No Minister should appear in public or on a platform outside the House without being constantly
  714
  reminded of the people's wrath. That should be a deserved, consequence of this further attack on the standard of living of those in our society least able to defend themselves.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I support the basic principles underlying the Bill, and the Social Security Act 1986.
  Although I listened with care to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I could not find anything which contradicted the basic thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve. The hon. Gentlemait raised all sorts of detailed criticisms and worries about what might happen, but he made no logical case against the Government's basic aims. I shall remind hon. Members what those are and make a few remarks about one or two aspects of the Bill.
  The Government aim to encourage greater independence by, for example, reducing the disincentive to work which results from the poverty and unemployment traps; to simplify the system, and help it to provide, on the basis of easily identifiable and understandable criteria; to concentrate help directly on those whose needs are greatest, such as low-income families with children, and to improve the service to the public by making the system easier for the claimant to understand, and for the staff to administer.
  I spelt that out because I find it difficult to differ from any of those basic aims. I have heard nothing from Opposition Members suggesting that they would differ from those basic aims. After all, how could one disagree with the concept of giving more help to those in greatest need? That must be the right way in which to proceed, and if that is the aim of the Bill—and no hon. Member who has spoken has convinced me that it is not—it is worth supporting. That does not mean that the Bill is perfect in every respect and that Conservative Members should not criticise its detail. Indeed, Conservative Members have criticised points of detail during the debate. That is right as it is important that the Bill should finish up in the best possible state to help the people we all serve.
  One of the aims of the Bill is to simplify the system. That is a subject dear to my heart as many of us dine out by quoting the social security regulations. I sympathise with my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I do not know how anyone can understand the present system. I will use the opportunity of this debate briefly to pursue my own hobby horse, which is that we must somehow get away from the appalling English which is used in the social security regulations. We must also get away from the sort of drafting which is used in parliamentary Bills. I was trained as a scientist, and I have spent a great deal of time trying to understand the language of parliamentary drafting, never mind the language of social security regulations.
  Even if I am alone in this campaign, I shall continue to speak out and say that we shall never improve the system and help people until we address this problem and make the regulations comprehensible to ordinary people, and, for the benefit of hon. Members, improve our system of drafting. This is not the time for me to suggest how we should go about that, but perhaps another opportunity will present itself.
  Anyone who has read the regulations must admit that they are hopelessly complex and cause endless difficulty to

  715
  constituents and to hon. Members trying to help their constituents. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take my remarks seriously and not consider them as a diversion from the main discussion about the Bill.
  Two Conservative Members have spoken about the ideal way forward being to combine the tax and social security system. In the 1970s it used to be called the tax credit scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) had in mind different end products. I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, when they look further ahead, not to forget that, in the long run, if we are to achieve the objectives set out in the Bill, we should eventually draw together the tax and benefit systems. It may seem out of date to refer to the old tax credit system, but I make no apology for reminding hon. Members about that concept and suggesting that we move back in that direction when the opportunity arises.
  We should move away from the sterile debate that so often takes place in the Chamber that is based on the claim, "We can do better than you for the poorer people of Britain." There has been a great deal of that from Opposition Members during this debate. Anyone can claim—this happened during the general election campaign—"We can do better. We can spend more." However, we all want to help the poorer people in our society. We all want to help families, and we all want to help the disabled. I am sure that there is no disagreement about that. Every constituency Member holds surgeries and we are all aware of the problems. We are all trying to address the problems in the best way possible.
  It should be the Government's aim to target benefits and resources on those in real need, and in that context I wish strongly to support the change that is proposed in clause 4 for those under 18 years of age. It is surely a step in the right direction. I am being told repeatedly by employers in Norwich that they cannot find skilled people for certain jobs. It is becoming an increasing cry. I could provide chapter and verse, as set out in correspondence, to support this contention. There is no question but that there are opportunities for young people. No one can say that the unemployment problem has disappeared, especially for older people, but there are opportunities for those who are skilled, particularly if they are young.
  We must move away from the idea that it is all right for a young person to draw unemployment benefit or income support, whatever we care to call it. If there are opportunities—and I am satisfied that there are—we must get people out of the habit of thinking that that is a normal option.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with what patience I can muster, but I can take no more. Does he not recognise that it is the cuts in decent training, which was provided before the Government came to power, that have caused the difficulty in identifying sources of skilled labour? Decent training cannot be replaced by the youth training scheme.
  Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady has anticipated my next argument. When I was a parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, I became aware of the youth opportunities programme of the then Labour Government. That was in 1977–78. I merely say
  716
  that the youth training scheme eclipses anything that the Opposition did when they were in government. I do not understand how they have the brass neck to suggest that their record of youth training measures up to what we have now.
  Of course we are all in favour of better apprenticeship schemes and more training opportunities. I am not suggesting that YTS is the only way in which young people can be helped or trained, but at least the Government have provided a two-year scheme that guarantees every young person between the age of 16 and 18 years the chance of training if that opportunity is not found in some other way. The Government's record is so superior to that of the Labour party when it was in power that I am astonished that Labour Members are intervening on this issue.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I have listened to the debate, and especially the references to the YTS, with great interest. I have an open mind on these matters, so it would be of considerable help to me if the hon. Gentleman could name any of his right hon. and hon. Friends whose sons and daughters are participating in the youth training scheme.
  Mr. Thompson: I have no children of my own, so I cannot refer to my own family. I have no list of the children of Opposition Members that sets out what they are doing. I have no idea what the sons and daughters of Members are doing. I reject the implication that lies behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which is that Conservative Members do not have children participating in the youth training scheme. That is a nonsensical suggestion and it is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to advance it.
  It is important that we develop and improve the YTS. There has been criticism of it today and I would say that, on the whole, the scheme is excellent in Norwich, but there are other areas where it could be improved. I am sure that my Front Bench colleagues will agree with me when I say that we must look to improve it still further. It cannot be perfect and so there must be room for improvement. I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House who say that we must make the scheme better still. That is fair comment.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, talked about the money implications in the Bill and claimed that everything in the Bill was directed to reducing expenditure. The YTS is a perfect counter to his remarks. If we are placing more and more people in the YTS—it is on record that the Government are spending vast sums on the scheme—there are spending implications in the Bill that will be good for young people and amount to a commitment to further training.
  I shall refer briefly to payments from the social fund, which are dealt with in clause 10 and schedule 3. I do not understand the provisions that relate to heating costs. If they mean that we are working towards a better system for dealing with cold weather problems and emergencies such as those which faced us a year or so ago, they are to be welcomed. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out more clearly the effect of these provisions.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also clarify the loans provisions. Many of my constituents want to know how loans will be dealt with within the terms of the

  717
  social fund. Much nonsense has been talked about loans this evening, and it is important that we all understand fully when the loans will be provided, and in what circumstances.
  It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should try to outbid us. It is all very well for them to talk about their record and claim that the Labour party cares more than other parties, but what is the Labour party's record? I can remember the last Labour Government. I remember also the cuts in the hospital programme that were due to the economic crisis. In addition, I can remember the winter of discontent and the effect that that had on the disabled and poorer people. Let us consider their failure to keep benefits and pensions in line with inflation, even though they promised to do just that. That leads me to conclude that action is better than words.
  I support the Bill, even though there are details of it that can be improved. I know that the Government's intentions are right and that it is correct to direct help to where the need is greatest.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. John Battle: First, I shall comment briefly on the tone and thrust of the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum starts with a positive tone. It refers to
  "fresh provision for schemes for the distribution of welfare foods."
  It refers also to providing
  "for the payment of travelling expenses".
  It sets out a range of amendments to social security law that will be effected by the Bill and suggests that there will be increased provision for those who are in need of social security in our society. However, the language of provision and enabling is notably absent from the accompanying press release of the Department of Health and Social Security which was published on 23 October, which opens with an aggressive negative. It reads:
  "This Bill implements the Government's manifesto commitment to withdraw entitlement to income support from people under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed. It does this by removing the general entitlement to income support of 16–17-year olds."
  Far from increasing or introducing fresh provisions, the Bill reduces entitlement and withdraws provisions. It is emerging from the debate that hon. Members of all parties need a lot of convincing that it will not short-change those who are in real need.
  Those of us who remember the great review by the previous Secretary of State may recall that that Bill was amended in detail in the other place. However, when the Bill returned here, in defiance of the amendments that had been tabled, it was passed on the royal wedding day, with the result that the Government have had to come back to amend the Bill because they did not take any notice of the amendments that were tabled then. That review failed, which is why we are discussing a second attempt to change the provisions.
  However, this Bill sets out to change the basic conditions for entitlement to income support for those under 18 years, despite the assurances that were given to the contrary during the Fowler review. It also continues the Government's policy shift from primary legislation to legislation by regulation. That increases the discretion factor in social security provision and in turn, will result in unjust treatment between individual claimants and will
  718
  seize up the system with appeals being made against the proposed legislation. Its impact will be to reduce access to benefits and to reinforce means testing.
  It would be interesting to know whether the emergency provisions contained in clause 7, relating to local authorities, are not the start of a shifting of the responsibilities of the DHSS on to local government. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government envisage that, at some date in the future, the social fund will be administered by local authorities, and whether limits will be placed on clause 7. I hope that we shall not see a shift so that local authorities will bear the burden of social security and will once again be the administers of the poor law. That would be a means of taking the poor in our society out of the national budget so that they would no longer be the concern of the Treasury.
  I should like to focus on the impact of clause 4 which will remove entitlement to benefit from unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in work, in full-time education or on YTS. The clause is based on the assumption that young people "deliberately choose unemployment." The Government's own commissioned research found that 91·1 per cent. of unemployed school leavers preferred to work rather than to remain on benefit. That statistic is given in the Department of Employment's research paper No. 61, which is entitled "Youth Unemployment: Social and Psychological Perspectives". Of those interviewed a year after leaving school who had failed to find work, the study found that only 0·2 per cent. said that they "prefer the dole". The report concluded:
  "It would not be correct to say that the young unemployed find unemployment attractive. It would seem that there are very few indeed who would rather not have a job."
  To tackle that tiny minority, the Government are prepared to introduce a blanket of removal of benefit from virtually all 16 and 17-year-olds. However, there are already rules in legislation to prevent abuse of the benefit system. Claimants must be available for work and be willing to take up any reasonable offer of work or approved training, including youth training schemes, or be penalised under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1975.
  Perhaps there are hidden assumptions behind the manifesto commitment that is spelt out in the Bill, such as the remarks made by the former Secretary of State for Employment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who talked of
  "young people lying in bed in the morning as an alternative to YTS",
  despite the fact that the evidence shows the opposite. It is not a case of subsidising idleness, which is what some Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) have asserted. Indeed, the opposite is true. At the end of each year since 1984 the so-called Christmas undertaking of a guaranteed place on a youth training scheme has been consistently unfulfilled, with up to 4,500 youngsters still waiting for a place at the year end. There is a real shortage of places, not least in my constituency in Leeds. Indeed, there is a shortage throughout the country and, as other hon. Members have said, there is a need for a further 100,000 places to provide those guaranteed places.
  The assumption that young people are moving straight from school into a benefit culture was made surprisingly plain in the Minister's statement. The concept of an alternative "benefit culture" is presumably to be set

  719
  against and contrasted with the "enterprise culture" which is at the heart of the Government's attitude. As one Conservative Member has suggested, the language of social security is important. However, it seems that in some cases benefits are regarded as perks that the poor deserve, but, there is no mention of the hidden welfare state and the real tax benefits that are given to the rich. I should like a Bill to be introduced to tackle tax evasion. That would be a sign that that receives equal treatment with social security issues. The real dependent culture is that of those who have a short-term addiction to personal tax cuts at the expense of the poor. I am reminded again of the language of social security: some are creditworthy and can get credit—they are the better off in our society—but the poor are regarded as having debts. What is "credit" for some is treated as "debt" for others.
  Accusing young people of being addicted to a benefit culture is to treat our young people as if they were the problem. The House should give the clear message that young people are not the problem. They should be recognised as the future of this country and encouraged to develop a sense of contributing to our positive future development. They should be given practical opportunities and support to do so.
  Last week the Prime Minister proclaimed:
  "There is no such thing as 'society'. There are individual men and women and there are families."
  Even such radical individualism acknowledges the family. After the great Fowler review the Government acknowledged:
  "Financial support should still be given to those who assume the extra responsibilities of bringing up children."
  If clause 4 is retained it will put intolerable strains on families. Young people will be totally dependent on their parents, and the amount of resources that will be available to families for their upkeep will be reduced from the £19·40 per week which is proposed from April 1988, to £7·25 which is the frozen level of child benefit that was introduced last week. Surely we cannot put extra responsibilities on to the family without an obligation to provide adequate financial support. We cannot have it both ways. Cutting benefit from young people and saying at the same time that they have a take-up of child benefit will not work if child benefit is put into the permafrost and is unable to support families.
  As was pointed out last week in the Daily Telegraph this Bill, like its predecessor is the price for the Government's
  "failure to make good its promises to reform the tax system".
  During the Fowler review the Government refused to allow consideration of the tax and benefit systems to be taken together. Conservative Members have already referred to that. Last week the Daily Telegraph went on to suggest:
  "A review of the social security system should be extended to the array of hidden subsidies from the Government to less deserving causes."
  That call for a full review of benefits and taxation suggests that the Secretary of State's predecessor radically failed in his job of overhauling social security so as to deliver social justice. That is why we are picking up the pieces in this short Bill.
  Tonight we have proposals to squeeze the contributions to the poor, but tomorrow the Autumn Statement on the
  720
  economy will demonstrate the country's ability to tackle and root out poverty. If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week,
  "our robust economic health and sound public finance put us in the strongest possible position,"
  surely we have a responsibility to ensure that all can participate in that economic health rather than force the poor to pay for the Chancellor's tax-cutting experiments. The Bill will further remove the poor from an entitlement to a stake, as of right, in our national economic development. Perhaps the time has come to take tonight's debate and tomorow's statement together. Perhaps the time has come to begin seeking justice for the poor.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: The speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was more moderate in tone than the speeches from some Opposition Members, but it was on the same wavelength—that the Government had not done what they would have done and that the Government's actions have an impact on the poor. Indeed, the Government's actions do have an impact on the poor. The hon. Gentleman mentioned tomorrow's Autumn Statement. A great many benefits of the past four years have resulted from the Government's successes and economic achievements, and from the way in which the Government have allowed the developments to continue.
  Clause 4 has given rise to criticism of the YTS from Opposition Members. They claim that the training is not what it used to be under the industrial training boards. Indeed, the people who have made some youngsters doubtful of the YTS sit on the Opposition Benches. They said, "Don't go on the YTS. It's cheap labour and not good enough. We should go back to the type of training we had in the old days." Since the introduction of the YTS, which had and still has its faults, we have seen remarkable developments both in the improvement of training within companies and in liaison with the educational system, technical colleges and so on, and a change in attitude among those advising young people and of young people towards the YTS. Opposition Members should go and talk to some young people on the schemes and see how they appreciate the training and recognise its worth.
  It has been said that there is a shortage of places, so the proposals cannot be introduced with confidence. Indeed, they can. Although there may be shortages, the converse is also true: there is a shortage of young people to take up some of the opportunities that exist and employers cannot get some young people for their schemes. Good YTS schemes exist. In 1986, the then Secretary of State said that some schemes would not be introduced until there were sufficient places. By and large, there are sufficient YTS places for the proposals in the Bill. That is consistent with what the Government have said in the past, and they are taking us forward.
  Given that young people have the options of further education, training and jobs, surely it is right that they should not be allowed to reject those opportunities out of hand and then expect taxpayers and the state to look after them. That is asking too much when provision has been made. We have the best training provision that the country has ever known. We have a long way to go and we shall certainly talk about that tomorrow when we discuss the Employment Bill. Nevertheless, the training available below the higher education levels is the best that we have seen. Much of the training under previous systems,

  721
  including some training boards, was out of date and inadequate for the future. Because it was inadequate the Government scrapped it, and employers welcomed that move.
  The first clause is important. It marks a change of attitude in offering young people opportunities and ensuring that those opportunities exist.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman present some factual analysis to show that young people in the north-west, part of which I represent, are shying away from youth training schemes, any other MSC schemes, or further education and accepting the principle of the dole? Last year in some parts of Makerfield nine out of 10 young people did not have the opportunity of a real job. It is an insult for the hon. Gentleman to stand here and parrot-phrase and lecture those young people who want a job opportunity. If he supports the clause, will he provide a factual analysis to show that so many young people are lying in their beds or sitting at home refusing opportunities? That does not exist in my constituency.
  Mr. Stevens: I hope that that does not exist, but I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's constituency does not have some people in that position. We are talking not about many, but some people. The percentage of young people of 16 and 17 years of age registered unemployed is not increasing. Some 10 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 15 per cent. of 17-year-olds——
  Mr. McCartney: Will you answer the question?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak through the Chair.
  Mr. Stevens: Some 10 per cent. of 16-year-olds are registered as unemployed. I do not suggest that large numbers are in that position.
  Opposition Members have attacked the clause dealing with attendance allowance. As I understand it, that clause seeks to return the position on attendance allowance to what people thought it was. The case that came before the courts changed most people's thinking on what the law stood for. I understand that about 300,000 people could have claimed under the law as the courts interpreted it. The clause is merely a tidying-up operation to restore the law to what people believed it was.
  We accept that attendance allowance is a sensitive issue, and it will always be. It has been and still is of tremendous help, but there are anomalies. I have a sad case in my constituency of a mother with young twins who are mentally and physically handicapped. For children before the age of two, no attendance allowance is payable. One twin has serious health problems and oxygen must be available almost all the time. That is a special case. But eligibility for attendance allowance at other ages undoubtedly needs to be considered in detail.
  I appreciate that if we removed the restriction on attendance allowance for children under two years of age, it would open doors to all sorts of questions. Anybody who has children under the age of two has a big commitment, and babies, especially twins and triplets, place an enormous burden on the parents.
  Mr. Nellist: As the grandparents of Vicki and Alexandra Storer live in my constituency, and I, too, have been approached by the family, how would the hon. Gentleman respond to my intention—on which I hope to elaborate, if not during the money resolution debate, in
  722
  Committee or, failing that, on Report—to table appropriate amendments so that chronically sick and disabled children, such as Vicki and Alex, are eligible for attendance allowance? That would allow their mother assistance and the orange badge which is crucial for their parents, so that they need not park the car hundreds of yards from the hospital, leaving them not only with a double buggy with two disabled kids, but an oxygen cylinder to carry.
  Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I have some sympathy with his comments. I would not have mentioned that case had I not seen it as an anomaly in our present circumstances. It is not easy simply to change things, and there are other cases where disabled and other people are affected. Those cases relate not simply to attendance allowances, but to other parts of the social security regulations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) referred to the drafting and language used in social security and DHSS matters. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has said about the difficulty of understanding the regulations and that creating problems for local offices and people in receipt of the allowances, but I want to pay tribute to some of the work that has been done by the Department in improving leaflets, documents and forms over the past four years. Those documents may not be perfect, but an enormous amount of work has been done and I congratulate the Department on what it has achieved. There is a long way to go, but we have seen definite improvements. I am sure that, like some of the "plain English" campaigns, we can find passages within the regulations and documents that are far from perfect. Nevertheless, the Department has done much to improve the position.
  I also want to comment quickly on the social fund. The social fund has been criticised ever since the day it was introduced in the Social Security Bill that became the Social Security Act 1986. The social fund is a sensible way in which to make money available to people. It can he used for grants and loans. Within the social security system, it is not unreasonable that some people who suffer a one-off financial burden should be helped by being able to borrow money and pay it back. It has always been a source of frustration and annoyance to some people in receipt of social security and supplementary benefit that such benefit appears to be given unfairly in one-off payments. I am not suggesting that it is given unfairly. However, some recipients often have the impression that others are receiving an unfair advantage. The opportunity to borrow in some cases or to receive grants in others can and will work very successfully.
  The Opposition have often criticised the Government over their treatment of the disabled. I wonder how much Opposition Members know about what is really happening. In his statement last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said that instead of the 4,500 people currently receiving in excess of £6 in the form of benefits for the disabled, he anticipated that more than 7,000 will receive the new supplement of £24·75. Our intentions in the Social Security Act 1986 and our intentions in this Bill, which will further consolidate the 1986 Act, are targeted where the resources are most needed and should give help where it can best be used. That pattern was set by the previous Secretary of State for

  723
  Social Services and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State will carry matters to a satisfactory conclusion.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Bill in 1986. It has already been said that one million words were spoken during the Committee stage of that Bill. For every word that was spoken, at least eight people either are already worse off or very soon will be worse off as a result of that particularly pernicious piece of legislation.
  We have yet another Social Security Bill which seeks to build on all the principles of the earlier, nasty legislation. In other words, it removes the safety net protecting against poverty in this country; it increases the power of discretion of local DHSS offices and gives the Minister enormous powers of direction and regulation to deal with what he terms are the problems of the age.
  In reality, throughout the country at the moment there is a frisson of fear running through young people as they see before the the spectre of industrial conscription. The same fear is running through people who at the moment rely on benefit which they receive as of right, but which in future will be means tested. They will have to go cap in hand to the DHSS for loans. Before them they see a Government hell-bent on punishing the poor for being poor. Beveridge did not seek to punish them for being poor: he sought to construct a social security system to eliminate poverty.
  Beveridge recognised that the elimination of poverty also arose from an economic policy that eliminated unemployment. This Government glory in mass unemployment and in punishing the poor for the poverty that they suffer as a result of the Government's policies—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members find this funny, they should tell that to the unemployed and poor in their constituencies. That is where the Government's policies are working. That is where the misery created by the Government is being lived out.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Try to be serious.
  Mr. Corbyn: I treat this subject very seriously. I wish that Conservative Members would do the same. If they did that, they would not support this nasty piece of legislation tonight.
  The cuts that have taken place since 1985 amount to many millions of pounds in social security benefit either in the loss of payments or changes in regulations. I will list five areas where cuts have taken place since 1985. First, maternity allowance has been cut by £36 million. Secondly, halving the mortgage interest rate for unemployed people has resulted in cuts of £38 million. Thirdly, reducing the rent taper on housing benefit has resulted in cuts of £28 million. Fourthly, abolishing the death grant has led to £18 million cut and, finally, abolishing maternity grant has led to another £18·5 million cut. That means £138·5 million just from those few items.
  I speak on this subject with some feeling. Since 1983 my constituency has seen a 20 per cent. increase in the number of people claiming supplementary benefit to the extent that the two DHSS offices at Finsbury park and Highgate,
  724
  which cover most of my constituency, now have a total of 38,500 people claiming supplementary benefit. That is the price that my constituency has had to pay for another four years of this Conservative Government. The Government say that they are concerned about inner-city areas. If they were, they would not be seeking to increase the poverty, dependence and cap-in-hand mentality that they have sought to introduce with this Bill.
  There are many aspects of the Bill that I could cover. However, we must consider the problems that already exist in the DHSS. I have seven surgeries a month in my constituency. I see a very large number of people in my surgeries. Most of the cases are housing, immigration or social security problems. Many of the social security problems are caused by non-payment of benefit which should be paid as of right to the claimants.
  It is easy and cheap for people to blame the staff in the DHSS. I do not necessarily do that. In fact, I do not blame them at all. They have suffered cuts in the past seven years. They have suffered from under-training, compulsory transfer and the threat of privatisation. It is hardly surprising in such an atmosphere, that queues build up and delays and wrong payments accumulate. In the offices in my constituency, there are regularly fights as security guards have been brought in to look after the staff and the building. The atmosphere is one of the absolute bedlam.
  That atmosphere occurs every week because people cannot get emergency payments. God knows what it will be like when the social fund comes into operation. People will be queuing up to get a loan and will be told, "The till is empty and the cupboard is bare. Wait until next April and come back." That is what life is like for people on supplementary benefit in my constituency. If any Conservative Member does not believe me, let him take a bus to the Archway tower, queue up and see what it is like. It is not far away from this place.
  There are many parts of the Bill about which I have strong feelings. There are seven that I wish to mention. The discrimination that will lead to loss of benefit for many people suffering from disabilities is a standing disgrace. The treatment of disabled people is disgraceful in any event. There is a lack of effective legislation and lack of support by the Government for the legislation that was effectively introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). That is also an absolute disgrace.
  Equally, the delay in implementing the family credit proposals is unsatisfactory. We cannot begin a new piece of legislation such as this when the last piece of legislation has not been cleared up.
  As for young people, I detect the usual Tory trick of hunting the scapegoat. They seem to think that somewhere in this country a 16-year-old is lying in bed in the morning instead of going out and getting a job. Their solution is to have an army of officials to hunt down this idle, feckless, useless 16-year-old, as if that will solve all the problems. However, in reality the Government know perfectly well that that is not the issue. Very much the issue is the fact that we have abolished the industrial training boards and taken away the possibility of decent training opportunities for young people. Instead we are forcing them to go from one YTS scheme to another, back on to the dole, back on to another scheme and back on to the dole.
  That means that we have the most untrained, disillusioned young people of any industrialised country.

  725
  The Government know that to be the case. They know very well that all their proposals lead only in the direction of appeasing the basest of instincts among Tory Members of Parliament and Tory party conference-goers—and there is no baser person than a Tory party conference-goer—as well as the worst elements of the gutter press. They are seeking to punish young people for being young and unemployed and wanting something to do. That is what the Bill does.
  From the contribution conditions implicit in the Bill it is clear that young people and married women will be excluded from some benefit. It is another hidden cut in social security, similar to the one that I mentioned earlier.
  With regard to emergency payments, I find part of the Bill suspicious. It talks about "any other body" that might make emergency payments. What other body might do it, apart from the DHSS and the local authority? Will the Government privatise emergency payments and hive them off to loan clubs, pawnbrokers, banks, charities and so on? There is something insidious and suspicious about this. The Minister should clear up this misunderstanding now or remove that provision in Committee.
  The most disgraceful aspect of the Bill is the way in which the social fund is envisaged and how it will operate. In Committee on the last Bill, we drew attention to the wrong-headed thinking in having a social fund at all, with the idea that it should be a fund from which people should borrow and that it should be cash-limited. Bit by bit, the information has crept out via the odd letter here, the odd quip at the Tory conference there, the odd leak to a newspaper and the odd announcement in the House. It is clear that the total fund will be extremely inadequate—only £200 million, when the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended £350 million. Only £60 million will be in the form of grant, and outstanding loans will count against the total value of the social fund in any particular DHSS office.
  The situation will be chaotic, even if the DHSS decides to administer the fund in the most scientific way possible on 1 April each year, based on the number of claims in the previous year. What will happen if there are major redundancies, if people move in and out of the area and if people suddenly need supplementary benefit because of changed economic circumstances? There will be the most horrendous mess, and the Government know that perfectly well.
  In addition, the drafting of the schedule dealing with the social fund is so vague that it will be perfectly possible at a later stage for the Minister or a hard-pressed local office or authority to decide to charge claimants the administrative costs of running the social fund. There is a big hidden agenda within the social fund, and the Minister should clear up the matter now. If he does not, he will be harassed and hounded from now until 1 April to clarify what the social fund means and how it will actually operate. If the Bill goes through, many people will be carefully watching how the social fund operates after 1 April. Some of us believe that money will run out in constituencies such as mine long before it runs out in some of the wealthier places that are represented by Conservative Members.
  There is also the question of cold weather payments, their administration and the system that will operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to the sheer lunacy of having cold weather payments that relied on cold spells running from Monday
  726
  to Sunday. He is absolutely correct. The chaos of last winter was also wrong. Very few people received the cold weather payments that the Government promised them. There was also the Government's rejection of the idea of a flat-rate payment that was proposed by the Labour party during the election. That at least would have removed the fear of winter heating charges from elderly people.
  It is a disgrace that more than 200 elderly people die each January from hypothermia because of their inability to pay for the adequate heating of their homes. That is a disgrace in any society that calls itself civilised Hypothermia is not known in many other European countries. It is known as the disease affecting the old and the poor that occurs in this country. I strongly support a standing payment for elderly people to remove the fear of cut-offs, cold meals and cold homes during the winter.
  I would also make the gas boards pay back some of the money they are making from privatisation by abolishing standing charges for the elderly, and I would do the same in respect of electricity.
  The discretion open to the Minister in the operation of the social fund is ominous. He will have the discretion to change things as time goes on and administrative conveniences arise. From the speeches of Conservative Members one would not believe that we are living in a country in which 6 million people live below the poverty line and where 11,000 people will be sleeping on the streets of our major cities tonight because they have no homes to go to. Instead of dealing with the problems of hungry and poor children, old people suffering from cold and the homeless, the Bill systematically attacks those people for being poor, cold and old simply because they are an administrative inconvenience or possibly because they are an obscene sight to Ministers driving home from the House and passing Charing Cross station.
  When we conclude the debate on this awful period in our history, I believe that the Government will go down as one who ruined the welfare state that was designed to eliminate poverty and who sought to fiddle the unemployment figures rather than deal with the problem. They sought to make young people scapegoats. even though all those young people wanted was a decent life and job. Above all, the Government have lit the candle of opposition to their proposals. Thousands of people now realise the common interest between young unemployed people, claimants, mothers who want decent maternity pay and poor pensioners. The Government are building up a coalition of opposition that will eventually defeat them—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may smirk, but eventually that opposition will remove them. The people of this country will not tolerate the obscenity of deliberating creating poverty amidst plenty or shelling out millions to satisfy the City and stockbrokers last week while this week they are impoverishing the poor.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I should like to speak in support of the Bill, and, in particular, clause 4, which gets rid of the provision for paying unemployment benefit to those under the age of 18. In my view, those payments have done much to sap the moral fibre of far too many of our young people. A provision that gives something for nothing creates a moral basis that is extremely dangerous for too many young people. However, the withdrawal of those payments must go hand in glove, as the Government intend, with improving the

  727
  quality of our YTS schemes. We have many excellent schemes, the overwhelming majority of which provide us with a basis for our young people to gain skills for life.
  Like many other hon. Members, I spent the summer recess visiting the YTS schemes in my constituency. I saw, for instance, the computer technology scheme, from which 90 per cent. of young people have gone on to good, well-paid jobs in my constituency and beyond. Those very people were deemed failures at school, but thanks to YTS, they have gained skills that have given them a future, and a future with self-respect.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what will happen to the young unemployed in my constituency, where unemployment is running at about 40 per cent? What will they do when there is no help for them—no YTS scheme, or no job opportunity after any such scheme if it existed? I do not think that the youngsters in my constituency lack moral fibre. As I said last week in the debate on defence, throughout my constituency can be seen memorials to people who were prepared to fight and die for their country. That is more than I can say for many of those who support the Conservative party. What about the way in which they fraternised with Hitler?
  Mr. Arnold: I shall ignore that last point. I trust that the hon. Gentleman has gone round his constituency constructively looking at the new YTS schemes and giving full encouragement to the youngsters in those schemes, as I have done.
  As well as the computer technology scheme that I mentioned, I have seen a highly successful scheme for developing skills in the building trades, as well as excellent schemes to develop secretarial skills. Again 90 per cent. of those so-called no-hopers have gone on to good, well-paid jobs which have developed their self-respect and capabilities. I have also seen a scheme in the cable industry the heavy industry for which the Labour party claims to speak. Those courses are very successful.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not give way.
  Mr. Allan Rogers rose——
  Mr. Arnold: I have already given way to the hon. Member. I shall make my speech, and I shall be interested to hear his later.
  As well as all those youngsters in my constituency who are on YTS schemes, there are those who are not on such schemes. I found a good example of why we need this proposal during the last general election campaign, when I was canvassing on my own. A poor, misled youngster had left school without even looking at YTS—and why? Because he had swallowed the claptrap from the local Labour party that it was some kind of slave labour, and was living on the very benefits to which the Labour party would condemn him. That lad had no future. He was wallowing self-righteously in self-pity—and for what? For the delight of the Labour party?
  I told that young man that his future, for which the Labour party seemed to care nowt, lay in obtaining the right skills for success in the future.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollock): What skills?
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman asks what skills. If he had listened quietly to what I had to say, he would have heard a number of them. Those skills are giving some 90 per cent. of the people on those schemes—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) has something to say, will he please rise in his seat and ask the hon. Member who has the Floor to give way?
  Mr. Arnold: The skills to which I have referred are precisely the skills which are of use to the young people in my constituency.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Let us suppose that two years after leaving school, two youngsters apply for a job. One has been on the dole for two years—thanks to the encouragement given by the Labour party—and the other has been on a YTS scheme. Which one will get the job?
  Mr. Arnold: It is absolutely clear that the one who will get the job is the one who has the skills, thanks to the Government's YTS schemes. The key to getting a job rests with our young people obtaining skills, and not imagining that jobs are due to them as of right.
  Let me return to the moral point. Opposition Members would condemn young people to fester in self-righteousness and unemployment. That is bad for young people, and it is also bad for those in work, because they know—and feel resentful—that the tax that they pay is going to the mates with whom they were at school, and who are not bothering to get off their backsides and find a job or training. That is the moral point.
  I have heard talk of cost cutting. Getting rid of unemployment benefit for those under 18 will clearly save money for the Department of Employment. That saving is deemed to be about £84 million, but far more relevant is the additional money that the Government will spend through extending and developing the YTS schemes for the youngsters whom we are discussing. The Government are likely to allow a net increase between the two Departments of some £60 million to provide the skills for our young people's future.
  Mr. Nellist: This is the first time that the hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords since he came to my constituency in 1983 to campaign on behalf of the Tory party, and left some three weeks later. Does he realise that since he tried to obtain the seat the number of registered unemployed—apart from the fiddled statistics—is now just over 22,000? The number of vacancies is 481. That means that, for every vacancy in Coventry, there are 46 unemployed people. How does the hon. Gentleman, with all his hypocrisy and concern about idleness and people not trying hard, equate that with 46 unemployed for each vacancy? Even if they all looked for a job 24 hours a day, and even if tomorrow morning all of those 481 vacancies were magically filled, there would still be 45 unemployed for every one who obtained a job. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Arnold: These are exactly the arguments of despair that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) peddled at the election when I contested the seat with him. That is why it should be noted that the swing

  729
  against the hon. Gentleman was the largest swing against Labour throughout the urbanised west midlands. So much, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Far be it from me to get up on a soap box, but, of the 57 seats in the west midlands, the third highest swing to Labour was——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Arnold: I was referring, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the election at which I fought against the hon. Gentleman—the general election of 1983.
  This measure should be introduced to cut out unemployment benefit for those under 18, but it should be introduced in a sensitive manner. The measure provides for a new YTS bridging allowance between the drawing of child benefit and before the take-up of a YTS place. We are saying to young people, "If you can't get a job, get trained. The option, at the expense of the taxpayer, is not to sit on your backside and earn benefit, because that money will be better spent on our schools and hospitals."—[Interruption.]
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) wish to raise a point of order?
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to give the Hitler salute?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not in order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman do that, but if he is behaving in that way I hope that he will cease immediately.
  Mr. Arnold: The message that has to go out to our young people must be absolutely clear: that they must find a job, or stay at school, or retrain. We have to tell them that if they want to sit on their backsides, they will not do so at the expense of the taxpayer, because we have far better things on which to spend taxpayers' money—on our schools, hospitals and pensioners. There is no soft option in this life, and our young people must be educated to realise that there is no soft option.
  9.1 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What I shall remember most about this debate is the tone of the speeches of Conservative Members, not least the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). With one honourable exception, their speeches were marked by arrogance, divisiveness, the perpetuation of myth, an attack on people in poor circumstances and straight populism. It is a far cry from the days of lain Macleod. On the Conservative Benches there seems to be very little left of the humanitarian approach to members of society who are less fortunate than they are. I remind the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to talk about election statistics, at the last general election his party lost the equivalent of a whole football team north of the border. Not the least reason for their failure was that the people of Scotland rejected the kind of philosophy that has been so ably demonstrated by the hon. Member for Gravesham. He is part of the reason for the continuing and developing north-south and Scotland-England crisis.
  730
  Reference has been made to the Beveridge report. The Government have not answered the question that I asked them only last week: what they define as the poverty line. There is an argument about the definition of poverty. If the Government are unwilling to accept the existing level of poverty, will they kindly tell us what they believe is the poverty level and how many people they intend to remove from the poverty trap by this legislation?
  It is said that the Bill is part of the process of rationalising a system that we all accept is very complex. We would accept that argument if rationalisation were taking place in our social security system, but rationalisation is being used by the Government as a cloak to cover the dagger of the cuts that they are imposing. No reference is made by them to the additional strains that are being placed on DHSS staff who have to cope with new legislation, and also with amendments to legislation. Their work is becoming extremely difficult, because of so many new Acts and the rapidity of change.
  Clause 1 deals with the attendance allowance. I welcome the apparent concession that was made earlier in the debate, and I look forward to hearing the exact details and clarification of this concession in the closing speech from the Treasury Bench. If, as was claimed by the Secretary of State, the Government are returning to the original intention of the law, why was the House of Lords ruling not pursued and recognised as the law that should have been implemented in this legislation? I should like to know whether any estimates were made on the level of take-up that would have been likely on a measure such as was envisaged in the Moran ruling in the House of Lords. It seems strange that no precise figures or costs were ever published. It seems that the Government did not undertake any estimates.
  I should like to reiterate the reference by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to Department of Employment research paper No. 61, which, in table 4.1, points out that 91·1 per cent. of unemployed school leavers prefer to work rather than remain on the dole. That belies the sort of argument we have heard from Conservative Members. Only 0·2 per cent. of the people interviewed said that they would prefer to remain on the dole; that shows the willingness of our young people to take up employment opportunities.
  I speak as a Member representing a rural constituency that has become known as one of the unemployment black spots in the Highlands of Scotland. In the past eight years the constituency has changed from being relatively well-off in terms of employment prospects to being one of the most dismal by the time we managed to defeat the Conservative in that seat. Part of the problem faced by many of the young people in my constituency is that even where there are YTS opportunities they tend to be centred in Aberdeen or Inverness where the bulk of our manufacturing and industry is centred. That means that there are few opportunities for a young person wishing to undertake YTS training in industry in my constituency. There are some very good projects operating but there is a difficulty for many who have to travel far to find employment opportunities. They experience great expense in travelling and in some cases have to find lodgings in the cities. We need the creation of employment, not the continuation of schemes or social security legislation which adversely affects those people.
  Clause 10 and schedule 3 of the Bill deal with the social fund. I have a personal interest in the severe weather

  731
  payments because, as some hon. Members will recall, during the 1970s, I regularly asked various questions about hypothermia. At the time it was thought of as a ridiculous stance to take. The then Labour Government did not accept the arguments we were putting forward. I am glad that the work started by my party in the 1970s and subsequently followed through by my party chairman, Gordon Wilson, with the introduction of several pieces of private Member's legislation in the last Parliament, has stimulated so much interest among so many hon. Members. I hope that we shall move towards something better than that mentioned in the Bill.
  I will not rehearse all the arguments that relate to severe weather payments. They have been dealt with by other hon. Members. However, I remind the House that it is generally colder in the north. We have longer winters, chill factors and winds that contain a great deal of dampness. The points of measurement used by the Government in their current legislation often do not relate well to all surrounding areas. In my constituency the measurement for severe weather payments is taken on the east coast when it would be much more sensible to have the point of measurement somewhere such as Aviemore. That would be closer to the temperatures that we experience in Tomintoul and Dufftown. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that the Tomintoul-Cockbridge road gives one of the first indications of winter because it is always the first to fill in when there is snow. I do not approve of the idea of a week being only from Monday to Sunday for the purpose of severe weather payments. Surely there must be something more appropriate.
  Finally, I should like to deal with the handicapped. I have a letter from MENCAP, a particularly well known organisation working with the handicapped. It has cited one or two examples of what would happen as a result of this legislation. A single parent with one child who is aged under 11 years and another who is over 11 years, one of whom is mentally handicapped, receives the attendance allowance, and the mother is in receipt of invalid care allowance. The present weekly entitlement for that family, if it took all of its entitlement, would be £117.45. An analysis of the same family after 1 April 1988 shows that it would receive £81.15 only, which is almost a 30 per cent. reduction. The Government must look carefully at how they are treating the disabled in this legislation.
  The 1986 Act has already affected many disabled people. I have received a letter from Grampian regional council, which says that as a result of the 1986 Act it is now unable to give the concession of cheaper school meals to children attending special schools. They will now have to pay the same rate as everyone else and free milk will no longer be supplied to children in primary 1 and 2. Surely that is one of the unkindest cuts of all.
  I am conscious of the time, but I wished to make a few points about the Bill to outline the reasons why plaid Cymru and Scottish Nationalist party members will vote against this legislation. We do not consider it to be a step towards the eradication of poverty but a step that will make life even more difficult for those who are most vulnerable.
  9.11pm
  Mrs Alice Mahon: It has been pointed out that huge amounts of money are given to the social
  732
  security system, but for millions of people it is their sole source of income; it is the only way in which they can support themselves and their families.
  The present level of benefits is disgracefully low. However, what I have heard in the debate leads me to believe that that level will be further reduced. Despite messing about with figures, the Government cannot hide the fact that the level of benefits is very low and that they will be reduced still further.
  I have heard comments in the debate that have shocked me, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). The hon. Lady tried to make out that people living on benefit were quite well off—if she were in the Chamber I would be able to point this out—yet anybody who is under 18 years of age, if they are lucky enough to receive benefit when the Government have finished with this Bill, will have only £19·40 to live on. Do Tory Members consider that amount to be adequate for anybody to feed themselves?
  The Bill will do nothing to help those people in Halifax who rely on benefits. Even worse is the decision to move away from one universal benefit of which women have been particularly glad since it was introduced—child benefit. The Government are acting in a most irresponsible manner. It is a complete reversal of their manifesto promises. They stated that
  "child benefit will continue to be paid as now."
  The Government are cheats and confidence tricksters. They are without honour because the spirit of that manifesto commitment has been completely reneged upon by the Minister's refusal to uprate benefits in line with inflation. I believe that it is the beginning of the end of child benefit as a universal benefit.
  With regard to some of the arguments about selectivity and targeting, the Government cannot argue against the popularity of child benefit, for which there is almost 100 per cent. take-up. The reason why it is so popular is clear. It is not means-tested; it does not stigmatise the claimant; and it is socially acceptable. It gives mothers the only income that many of them receive in their own right, because under the system they are deemed dependent. Indeed, the Prime Minister has spoken of its benefits, if only in rather peculiar terms.
  The Bill hits another vulnerable group—young people, who are refused the right to choose whether to go on YTS. The word "choice" is important. It is ridiculous to argue that enforcing acceptance of a YTS place gives a choice. Reference has been made to the thousands who will not be offered a place and who will be given a bridging loan, but that is not satisfactory. The Opposition are not happy about what will happen to young people trying to escape from domestic violence or sexual abuse. There will be only a bridging arrangement for them. I listened to the Secretary of State renege on the child benefit commitment. I do not feel that those children will be protected by the Government.
  I have heard unbelievable rubbish talked about YTS, as though it were a panacea for all training ills. I have taught those who have come for off-the-job training and listened to their horror stories. Many of the schemes are good, but many are not; they are merley substitutes for jobs that involve no training. Kids have spoken to me about being on a two-year interview and being blackmailed into taking unpaid overtime. I have listened to many complain of sexual harassment and not dare to say anything when they feel conscripted.

  733
  The Government should not say that YTS is the answer to training. Some schemes are good and are topped up, but many are repressive and contain no training elements. Young people do not refuse to go on these training schemes because they want to skive. Conservative Members do not seem to know anything about the real world. Young people are taught by the education system that they will later earn their living and participate in society, but that is denied to thousands of them.
  The Secretary of State has admitted that thousands of pensioners and many disabled people will be worse off. I should like to know specifially whether income support will compensate patients on supplementary benefit who receive an extra £18 for life-saving dialysis treatment and are given assistance to pay for their heating and diet. One of the meanest aspects of the Government's scheme has been the treatment of people who need carers and their attendance allowance. Conservative Members have no idea of the sacrifice that carers make. Have they no concept of the stress imposed not only on carers but on the people for whom they care? The human element must be considered. Will we have to beg to care for people in the community? Many people are in the community because of the Government's community care policies which have pushed people out into society without adequate community care provision.
  I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a redistribution of income and wealth. That is why I believe in the welfare state. The Opposition think that that is the only way to achieve a fairer and more equal society. That is what makes me a Socialist. The Government will go to any lengths to get rid of the welfare state. The Bill is another nail in its coffin. This measure is also damaging to democracy.
  The Bill provides for a further expansion of ministerial powers. This detailed legislation gives one person the right to decide who can eat, who can be looked after, whether a person will he paid if he refuses to go on a scheme and, ultimately, who lives or dies—[Interruption.] We are talking about those issues. There is no getting out of it. Conservative Members should remember, if they are going to vote for the legislation, that that is exactly the issue about which we are talking.
  Completely to ignore advice from inside and outside the House about the dire consequences for millions of people if benefits are cut yet again is the hallmark of an authoritarian state; it is to freeboot over the people who need us most. There is no mistake about that. Governments who, like this Government, restrict the democratic process to Ministers alone are prone to resort ever further to authoritarianism. I argue that that is alien to our way of life.
  9.20 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been an interesting and, in some ways, revealing debate. Those hon. Members who were present early in the debate will certainly know more about Chelmsford than they did, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on the assured manner of his maiden speech, if not on his controversial observations.
  The debate revealed, too, that I have done the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) an injustice in recent years by believing that she was for some reason unable to see the conflict between the Government's declared aim—which she celebrates so
  734
  often—of helping those in the greatest need and. proposals such as those in the Bill. Today the hon. Lady finally made it crystal clear that her definition of need is fully as rigorous and restrictive as even this Government could wish. She made it quite clear that Mrs. Moran, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), does not pass her test of need—and nor do many others suffering from illnesses from epilepsy to cystic fibrosis.
  The debate also revealed that Ministers were not wholly seized of the effects that we believe clause 1, as drafted, would have. We welcome the readiness of the Secretary of State to consider amendments, and we hope that he will not restrict it to this clause. The Secretary of State said that clause 1 simply restored the law to what the Government believed it to have been. I hope that he will be aware that the Disability Alliance has suggested that the Government advertently or otherwise, are substantially tightening up the law as they understood it before the Moran case. We shall press them on that in Committee, and we hope that they will consider an amendment if it turns out that there is substance in our arguments.
  The Bill cuts still further the entitlement to industrial injuries benefits. It was noticeable throughout that Conservative Members were torn between the desire to deny that there were cuts and the desire to applaud the Government's justification for them. The Government suggest that now that they have renamed and redefined severe hardship allowance as reduced earnings allowance it should cease to be paid on retirement and be replaced by a retirement allowance. That sounds innocuous enough. However, for many, and perhaps most, of those who now receive the allowance the change will mean a drop in income of some £19·35 a week on retirement. For people whose incomes are not exactly high even now that is a substantial sum to lose. We believe that the Government will find it hard to defend the change, and we shall press them further on it.
  Will the Minister touch briefly on clause 3? the provision has not been dealt with in the debate, largely because it is opaque to say the least. Will the Minister assure us that the Government do not intend to use this apparently technical clause to separate the date of claim for family credit from the date of payment for reasons of administrative convenience?
  Much has been said about clause 4. Almost all the Tory Members who have spoken have claimed that the clause implements the Government's manifesto pledge to deny benefit to those who refuse the offer of a YTS place. Let me repeat what has been said over and over again by Opposition Members, although apparently not understood by Conservative Members. The clause does not deny benefit to those who wilfully refuse to work. The Government can do that under existing legislation, although that has proved necessary only on a comparatively few occasions.
  The Bill denies benefit as of right to all 16 and 17-yearolds, including those who have never been offered a YTS place. The benefit will be denied as of right to those who find themselves in that position through no fault of their own. The Secretary of State blustered bravely about the YTS guarantee when it was pointed out to him that there were inadequate places on YTS to accommodate those whom he now intends to go on the scheme. An estimated 100,000 extra places are needed to implement that guarantee. I do not see where they will come from between

  735
  now and next April. This means a reduction in family income of £11·50 a week for families entitled only to child benefit rather than to income support at £18·75.
  We have been reminded that some people might be entitled, in some circumstances, to a bridging allowance. But if this does not carry an entitlement to other passported benefits it means a lower income for the family as well as for the young person. The only exception to the denial of benefit will be where severe hardship is recognised by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to that.
  I was going to ask the Secretary of State how he defined severe hardship, but I listened with horror to what he said when opening the debate. He referred to young people who left home because they were the victims of physical or sexual abuse. He appeared to suggest that even they would be entitled to draw benefit only for a restricted period. If being the victim of sexual abuse is regarded as only a temporary hardship, I wonder who will benefit from the Secretary of State's definition and discretion in this cause. Under the board and lodging regulations young people who have so suffered cease to be entitled to help when they reach the age of 19. Is that what is intended in the Bill? Because of the way in which the Bill is phrased, we know that there will be no appeal against the Secretary of State's decisions. We intend to raise that in Committee.
  I shall disregard comments about the lack of moral fibre among our young people. Moral fibre is probably all they can afford because they certainly will not be able to afford a high fibre diet. What strikes me forcefully about the debate is the total lack of understanding by Government Members. It is bad enough, humiliating and embittering enough, to be forced to take part in a make-work scheme because some overpaid and pompous Minister thinks that young people are lying in bed and rejecting the wonderful opportunities that he is offering. It is even worse to be forced into doing a job which is needed and is of value but without proper conditions of work or proper wages. Those are the only alternatives offered to young people in the Bill.
  The Bill represents just the latest in a series of attacks on young people. It will raise between £300 million and £355 million. The Government have saved that at the expense of young people in recent years. It never seems to occur to the Government that in their ceaseless attacks on the young they are sowing the wind and that sooner or later we shall reap the whirlwind.
  No justification has been offered for tightening contribution conditions for unemployment and sickness benefit. When that is added to the recent abolition by the Government of partial benefits paid as some return for partial contributions—one of the many areas in which the link between contributions, paid or credited, and benefit entitlement is being steadily reduced—it paints an alarming picture.
  There is an honourable case for extending benefits to those who have had no opportunity to make contributions, through no fault of theirs. There can he no case—none has been made—for withdrawing benefits when substantial contributions, perhaps over a working lifetime, have been paid.
  The Secretary of State claimed that many, especially women and young people, will lose their right to
  736
  unemployment benefit and be forced, at best, on to means-tested income support, but that the long-term sick need not be deterred by the Bill from seeking work. That does not appear to be so. It seems to us that someone who is long-term sick and seeks work but cannot sustain it may lose entitlement to invalidity benefit. We shall seek to explore that in Committee, and if we are right I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider. It is ironic if this is what the Secretary of State calls reducing dependence on the benefit structure.
  There has been a further cut for those drawing their occupational pensions at 55 years of age. Most people in that position have been pushed, if not forced, into early retirement. They are already losing by that decision.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of those who exercised a voluntary choice to retire early, and I am sure that that is very nice for them. However, most of those who retire at 60 lose on the pension that they would have gained had they been able to continue work until 65. That must be even more true for those who retire at 55; they will be even heavier losers on their occupational pensions. The Government now propose to withdraw the entitlement to unemployment benefit—for which, in many cases, people will have contributed all their working lives. The fact that they will lose everything over £35—which, when introduced, was at least more than the basic state pension, but now is substantially less—only adds insult to injury.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston, in referring to the clause on welfare foods, said that it was quite wrong of the Maternity Alliance to claim that 220,000 women and children would lose entitlement to free milk. I hope that the hon. Lady is, for once, correct and that the Minister will reassure us on that point. The hon. Lady demonstrated the ignorance of those on the Conservative Benches about what the Government are doing with the social fund. I remind her of what the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee said a year ago——
  Dame Jill Knight: I hope that the hon. Lady gets it right this time.
  Mrs. Beckett: I got it right last time; the hon. Lady obviously did not read the report. It said:
  "some expenses cannot realistically be budgeted for from within present benefit rates."
  It also referred to the setting of adequate rates for personal allowances. Since the SSAC made those remarks, the Government have published figures for income support that are demonstrably lower than the present benefit rates that the committee said did not allow people to save to meet expenses that would otherwise be claimed for as single payments.
  Also, the SSAC set a framework for the budget for the social fund and said that the minimum, even with benefits maintained at past levels, would be £350 million if the scheme were to be workable. What has been offered by the Government? I remind hon. Members who may or may not have been here for the uprating statement that the figure has been set at £200 million with reduced basic benefits—especially for the unemployed, who are those most dependent on single payments.
  For the benefit of those who may not have ploughed through every word of the social fund manual, and to give the flavour of what is intended, I shall pick out four issues that it highlights. First, even loans are not available to meet fuel costs in most circumstances, even though, as

  737
  anyone who knows anything about the subject will know, it is most often fuel costs that create the greatest burden of debt. There is a reference—I would not wish to mislead the House—to some help for fuel costs, and it casts an interesting light on the Government's view of the circumstances in which the future long-term unemployed are likely to live. It is possible to make a claim against the social fund for non-mains fuel costs—for example, oil or bottled gas. It is not possible in any circumstances to claim, even for a loan, for the cost of paying mains fuel connection charges. That casts an interesting light on the twilight world in which the Government expect such people to dwell in future.
  The second point that I want to highlight is a fact which comes out clearly in the manual but which did not come out clearly when we debated the matter about two years ago. It is that those who are proven to have the highest possible priority need, those who are proven to have the right to make at least a claim against the social fund because they are in the highest priority group, those who are demonstrably proven to have the greatest need of all because, on examination, it is proven that their income is too inadequate to repay a loan even were it to be offered, will not receive one single penny in assistance. They are demonstrably the most desperate of all, but they will go utterly without help.
  Mr. Key: I represent a large number of low-paid agricultural workers. They know that there are alternative arrangements for the payment of energy costs. They do not involve loan payments, but are sensitively agreed between the electricity authority in particular but also, where appropriate, the gas authority, and the person concerned. Those authorities could scarcely have made more favourable arrangements for had debts and for circumstances where people are unable to pay. Furthermore, the Gas Consumers Council has made exceptionally good arrangements following privatisation.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that the people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) are so fortunate. I cannot say the same for my constituents. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I have said. First, I was talking about what help might he available in the circumstances of fuel debts. Secondly, I cited the case of people—no matter what the identified need—who can prove that they are in desperate circumstances, that they are so poor that they cannot repay a loan if offered, but who will not receive a penny in assistance. That more than anything shows what the social fund is about.
  The third issue that I would like to highlight is one that has become clear only after the publication of the Bill. We are aware from the draft manual and from the publication of the full manual that social fund officers have been told not to keep a waiting list. Therefore, if they have to turn down an application which has every validity, which is from a family in proven need, simply because there is no money left in their budget, they are not allowed to put that claim on one side until money becomes available, perhaps in a succeeding period.
  We are now told in the Bill that the Government have deliberately taken powers to ensure that if, in any circumstances—including those where there is no question about need, no question about a priority group, no question about the difficulties—a claimant is turned
  738
  down for no other reason but that there is no money in the budget, that claim cannot be reconsidered for six months. That is an outrage and a disgrace.
  The fourth issue that I should like to highlight in the social fund concerns guidelines given by the Government to social fund officers on exercising their generosity. The Government state:
  "Social fund officers should under no circumstances make an award which cannot be paid from the local office budget."
  If they are forced not to make an award because of the budget, social fund officers may not review the case in less than six months.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) regretted that the Bill does not alter the structure of the welfare state and does not alter the structure of the benefit system. For once, I think that, uncharacteristically, my hon. Friend is wrong. The hon. Member for Tatto:n (Mr. Hamilton) said that the Government were going back to the principles of national insurance. In fact, the Government are going back on the principle of national insurance. The principle of that scheme was that people should pay into the system of national insurance when they were in the position to contribute so that they were able to draw, as of right, when they had need. It is that principle that is being undermined at every stage in the Bill.
  The Government say that their proposals for social security are about people standing on their own feet. In fact, they are cutting people's feet from under them. Many Conservative Members spoke movingly in this debate—it has been a good debate—about their wish to help those in real need. This Bill is a depressing check list of those who do not qualify in the eyes of those compassionate souls who spoke so movingly. Those who do not qualify include the epileptic or those with cystic fibrosis; the young unemployed denied the opportunity to work; the occupational pensioner pushed out of work before time; and the poorest of all whose very poverty deprives them of being considered for loans from the social fund.
  This is a bullying Government and, in common with all bullies, they pander to the strong and trample on the weak. We shall fight to prevent that.
  9.49 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I shall start with what may turn out to be the only non-controversial feature of the debate to which I shall refer during the few minutes that separate us from a Division. I wish to echo the tribute that has been paid by many hon. Members in all quarters of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his maiden speech. My hon. Friend spoke of the distinguished record of his predecessor in this place, and we all echo that. He spoke too with wit, knowledge of his constituency and of the subject that we are debating. I hope that he will contribute frequently to our debates on social security and related matters.
  Any legislation of the sort that we are discussing, which involves the unemployed, the sick and the disabled, and their entitlements, should have the closest possible scrutiny within the House. I am delighted to take note from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that we can expect in Committee to have just that scrutiny. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise, having herself had to endure a rather breathless canter through her speech because we

  739
  both agreed to let other hon. Members participate and take some of our time, that it would be impossible for me to take up all the points that she and others have made. However, I welcome the long list of subjects of which she has given notice that she wishes to discuss in Committee.
  I welcome that sort of discussion, but listening to the hon. Lady, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) earlier, and one or two other contributions from other Opposition Members, it would be possible to gain the impression that the Bill, rather than being a brief, sensible and responsible measure to improve the administration of the considerable sum that we spend on social security, is an all-out assault upon the welfare state as we know it.
  In the coming financial year, the Government will spend about £46 billion on social security. The Bill will save about £80 million in the coming financial year. That will be more than offset by extra expenditure on the youth training scheme. To put these matters into perspective for the benefit of Opposition Members who regard the Bill as an assault upon those in need, and especially the young, it costs twice as much in public expenditure terms to have a young person on the YTS rather than on supplementary benefit or income support. We are investing considerable sums to ensure that young people receive the training that they need to fit them for employment.
  There will be some savings as a result of the enactment of the Bill, albeit it modest ones. I believe that these savings are sensible, and in essence this modest measure is designed to achieve three objectives. First, it is designed to achieve some tidying of the extremely complex pattern of social security legislation that has grown up over the years. Next April we shall be embarking upon a system of income support which, overall, will be simpler, easier to administer and easier to understand. It will make it easier to get help to those who most need it. It will be the most fundamental change in social security that we have had since the end of the second world war. It is only right that in this Bill we should take the opportunity to correct any mistakes or inaccuracies that we can find in existing legislation before the changes come into place.
  The second objective of the Bill is to ensure that we target the resources that are available on those who most need help. I am conscious that even on the Government Benches there are those who regard the concept of targeting as somehow ill judged. There are even some Opposition Members who regard it as a dirty word. It means in practice that the Government are determined to seek to use what must be finite resources, vast though they are in the social security area to meet almost insatiable demands, in a sensible and compassionate manner in providing for those who need most help.
  The third main buttress of the Bill is designed to encourage as many young people as possible to take advantage of the training schemes that are available to them. This was dealt with in some detail by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Livingston has asked whether the Bill and the reforms of next year have been set to withstand the strains of the next 40 years of the social security system. I would make no such claim. There will be fundamental changes that will set a pattern that will be of help
  740
  overwhelmingly to those who most need help in our society but I am sure that we shall need to make subsequent changes as the years pass.
  I turn now to some of the detailed points that have been made during the debate—first, to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). Many of his points were properly related to the legislation that we are discussing, but some raised questions, not only for Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security, but for Ministers in other Departments, not least the Treasury. His comments presented us with the basis for a debate that may, in future, command increasing attention.
  However, he was rather less generous to us in recognising the steps that the Government have already taken in seeking to alleviate the unemployment and poverty traps, not least by using net rather than gross income to assess family credit and housing benefit, by bringing more generous help to double the number of people in receipt of such benefit by moving them from family income supplement to family credit, and by aligning the assessment rules for income-related benefits so that people on the same income level are treated in the same way whether they are in or out of work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who has sent me a note to explain why she cannot be present in the House, discussed child benefit. I know that she is especially concerned about the universality of that benefit. However, I must make the point—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done so previously—that in deciding not to uprate child benefit in tune with inflation this year, we saved 30p on child benefit for each claimant. In public expenditure terms, that saved £120 million on child benefit from next April.
  However, from next April if one combines the rates of income support and the introduction of family credit, those beneficiaries with children will be supported by no less than an extra £320 million. At the same time, child benefit will remain a most important benefit, which will, of course, be paid to the mother. I remind the House that family credit will also be paid to the mother.
  Mr. Nellist rose——
  Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way. With respect, the hon. Member for Derby, South did not give way, and I have cut down my time to answer these points.
  I wish to deal especially with the important issue of the attendance allowance, which was raised by the Opposition's Front Bench spokesmen and by other Opposition Members. I should remind the House that the attendance allowance is a tax-free, non-contributory weekly benefit that is paid in recognition of the extra costs associated with long-term severe disablement. The medical conditions for entitlement to the allowance are based on the disabled person's need for care from another person in the form of attention in connection with bodily functions or continual supervision to avoid substantial danger.
  It has not been mentioned during the debate that the attendance allowance is paid at two distinct levels. There is a lower level for someone who needs attendance during the day or during the night, and a higher level if a person needs attendance at night as well as during the day. Those conditions must be satisfied over six months before the

  741
  allowance is payable. Decisions on whether or not the allowance is payable are made by an independent Attendance Allowance Board and by doctors who are specially designated to make decisions on behalf of the board.
  If Opposition Members believe that the Government are being mean about the attendance allowance, I should remind them of what has happened to the attendance allowance under this Government. Over a period of six years since the Tory Government came into office, the numbers in receipt of attendance allowance have increased from 314,000 to 585,000—that is an increase of about 86 per cent. In real terms, expenditure on the allowance has increased by 104 per cent., from £350 million in 1979–80 to £846 million in 1987–88 at constant prices. That is the level and measure of our commitment to attendance allowance and the House should be congratulating rather than criticising the Government for it.
  Mr. Nellist: Given the Minister's obvious pride in his description of the Government's record on attendance allowance, will he comment on the case that I mentioned in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens)—we both have members of the family concerned in our constituencies? Will he extend attendance allowance to chronically sick and disabled children under the age of two? The Storer family have twins, Vicki and Alex, who are 18 months old and so physically and mentally disabled that their mother needs to have oxygen cylinders permanently on hand, as well as all the ancillary requirements for children of that age. She is unable to get an orange badge for her car [Interruption.] The Minister may be exasperated, but this is a serious matter for the family whom we represent. If he is so proud about the scheme, will he extend it to children under the age of two?
  Mr. Scott: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman wholly to abuse my giving way to him when I am so short of time. The conditions are for the Attendance Allowance Board. Attendance allowance is not generally paid to children under two because naturally they need constant attendance by their parents. This point was also raised by some of my hon. Friends and I shall certainly look into it, but that is the logical reason why attendance allowance is not paid for children under the age of two.
  The case of Mrs. Moran is of particular concern to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The court decided that the Attendance Allowance Board had erred in denying that Mrs. Dorothy Moran, who had been receiving the lower rate allowance since 1983 on account of her daytime attendance needs, required the allowance for continual supervision at night. The court of appeal gave a wider interpretation of continual supervision than had hitherto been accepted by Parliament as a whole and those who had taken a particular interest in this matter.
  Until the court's decision the Attendance Allowance Board had operated the provision as requiring a need for active supervision by someone who was awake. The court held that the provision could include passive, standby supervision, even by someone asleep. Intervention to prevent substantial danger need only be rare. Clause 1 is merely intended to return us to the position that existed before the Court of Appeal judgment. It does that by making it clear that at night a disabled person qualifies for the allowance if he needs the wakeful and watchful
  742
  presence of another person for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose——
  Mr. Scott: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete the point. It may be that I shall cover his question and I have already had to deal with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist).
  Disabled people who require frequent attention at night in connection with their bodily functions or who need a prolonged period or frequent intervals of supervision in other circumstances will continue to receive the higher allowance. Against that background it is not unreasonable to provide for this change in the law.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister stated that the intention of the clause was to restore the position of the law as it was before the court ruling. The clause, as drafted, goes well beyond that and will deny the claim of the 6,000 people, including Mrs. Moran who submitted a further application following the court ruling. Whatever view that the Government may take as to what the law should be, surely they will permit the claims of the 6,000 people who have submitted claims following that court ruling.
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman has made an assertion. However, that assertion is not supported by the Attendance Allowance Board, which supports the change that we are introducing and believes that it restores the position to what it was before we made the change.
  The Attendance Allowance Board will review Mrs. Moran's case in due course, following the Court of Appeal judgment. It will decide whether she satisfies both the daytime and night-time conditions of entitlement. It has decided that on first sight that is not so. She has been asked to make further representations and to submit any further evidence in support of her case. Her legal advisers have provided that extra information and the board is considering it. It is hoped that Mrs. Moran will receive a final decision in the very near future. If the decision is in her favour, she will receive an enhancement of her current lower rate allowance replaced by a higher rate allowance with arrears back to the date on which the board certified that she first satisfied the medical conditions.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Livingston raised this issue earlier and said that he was concerned about cases in the pipeline at the moment. It is right that we should deal with such matters before the debate draws to a close.
  I recognise the full force of the argument that the hon. Member for Livingston put forward about cases in the pipeline. He asked me whether any cases entered before Second Reading could be dealt with and whether I would introduce an amendment to the Bill to that effect. I will do better than that. I will ensure that any cases in the pipeline up until the time that the Bill receives the Royal Assent will be so dealt with and an appropriate amendment will be introduced by the Government in Committee for that purpose.
  I detected that the hon. Member for Livingston was having a little fun with the Government in his opening remarks. I can confirm that there will be an appeals procedure for exceptional cold weather payments. Once again, the Government will introduce an amendment to that effect. The hon. Member for Livingston had great fun

  743
  with us about a series of mistakes that he alleged existed in current legislation. I might just mention that Okehampton is in Devon, not Cornwall.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for his clear statement about Mrs. Moran's rights. I also thank him for his very clear statement tonight on behalf of the 6,000 other people with claims pending.
  Mr. Scott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically reasonable approach to what I hope was a constructive announcement.
  In particular, I want to mention the disabled. The House is very worried about the severely disabled. By moving next year to a system of income support, with personal allowances topped up by premiums that will be targeted on groups, we shall have a more simple and easily understood system which will be for the long-term benefit of people who need help and especially the disabled. It means that those who presently have many additional requirements will of course receive transitional protection after next April. People who would otherwise have received many additional requirements will receive less benefit than their predecessors receive at the moment. I am conscious of that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his uprating statement last week said that he was also conscious of that. However, we are referring to very few people. We are talking about hundreds, not thousands. However, I am seeking ways in which it may be possible to address the particular circumstances of that small group of people.
  I ask the House to recognise that with regard to the provision for the disabled, under income support we are providing an extra £50 million to meet their needs. We are also providing a new allowance—the severe disability premium—which will come into existence next April at a cost of about £8 million at a rate of £25 a week. That will contribute substantially to meeting the extra needs of disabled people.
  This is a sensible and necessary Bill. It is important because it will encourage—and I say encourage, not conscript, coerce or force—young people towards the training that is so important for their futures and for the social and economic future of our country. It not only encourages them towards training and enables them to better fit themselves for the employment market, it moves them away from a damaging downward spiral from dependence on benefits.
  It is also sensible and necessary because it ensures that resources are directed at those who most need them. It will also help to ensure the smooth running of the social security system when that is reformed next April. Of course, nothing is for ever. We shall want to see that as needs change, we too change and that we reform the system to make sure that it is continually updated to be in tune with the needs of those who most need help in our society.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 238.

  Division No. 38]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Amos, Alan

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Allason, Rupert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  744

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Favell, Tony

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkins, Robert

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forth, Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Batiste, Spencer

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Peter

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gale, Roger

  Benyon, W.

  Gardiner, George

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gill, Christopher

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gow, Ian

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gregory, Conal

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Brazier, Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bright, Graham

  Grist, Ian

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ground, Patrick

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butcher, John

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heddle, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Churchill, Mr

  Hill, James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howard, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Durant, Tony

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Evennett, David

  Key, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Farr, Sir John

  Knapman, Roger

  745

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ryder, Richard

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lord, Michael

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marlow, Tony

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miller, Hal

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mills, Iain

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich A)

  Moate, Roger

  Thorne, Neil

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Tredinnick, David

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Nelson, Anthony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neubert, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Ward, John

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wheeler, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Redwood, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Woodcock, Mike

  746

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Anderson, Donald

  Foster, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, John

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  George, Bruce

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Barron, Kevin

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Battle, John

  Gould, Bryan

  Beckett, Margaret

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Beith, A. J.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bennett, A F (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Hardy, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Blunkett, David

  Haynes, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Boyes, Roland

  Heffer Eric S

  Bradley, Keith

  Henderson, Douglas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hogg, N (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Holland, Stuart

  Buchan, Norman

  Home Robertson, John

  Buckley, George

  Hood, James

  Caborn, Richard

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howell, Rt Hon D (S'heath)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hume, John

  Clay, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  John, Brynmor

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Corbett, Robin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer Bob

  Lambie, David

  Cummings, J

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Leighton, Ron

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alastair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dewar, Donald

  Livsey, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Doran, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Douglas, Dick

  McAllion, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAvoy, Tom

  Dunnachie, James

  McCartney, Ian

  Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McCusker, Harold

  Eadie, Alexander

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McGrady, E K

  Ewmg, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKay, Allen (Pemstone)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  747

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Short, Clare

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Snape, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morley, Elliott

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  O'Brien, William

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wall, Pat

  Patchett, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, John

  Winnick, David

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Worthington, Anthony

  Robertson, George

  Wray, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Social Security Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signed—
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill it is expedient to authorise the following—

  (1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums falling to be paid by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act by way of travelling expenses;

  (b) any other expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the Act;

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.

  (2) The making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  The money resolution is in a form that will be familiar to the House for a social security Bill. It covers only payments from the Consolidated Fund and not from the national insurance fund or the social fund. The resolution is set out as follows: paragraph (1) (a) refers to clause 12(1) and clause 12(2), which relates to expenses incurred in travelling to hospital for treatment. Clause 12(1) covers England and Wales and clause 12(2) covers Scotland. Paragraph (1)(b) gives a general power to incur administrative expenses resulting from any clauses of the Bill. In particular, clause 7 may involve administrative expenses where local authorities and other bodies are authorised to make emergency payments on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  Paragraph (1)(c) refers to any increases in payments made from the Consolidated Fund due to the Bill and relates to clause 4 which provides for child benefit to be extended to the families of 16 and 17-year-olds as part of the two-year youth training scheme. Paragraph (2) relates to payments into the Consolidated Fund as a result of recoveries from any overpayments to suppliers of welfare foods under clause 11.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: We are now debating the power that the Government seek to take in order to provide the expenditure necessary for them to carry out the provisions in the Bill, Second Reading of which the House has just approved. As the House is aware, the money resolution specifically requests authorisation of the Secretary of State to pay, by virtue of the Act, travelling expenses and expenses for a Minister of the Crown. That constricts, to a certain extent, the remarks that can be made by an hon. Member who is attempting to speak in the debate. I hope that I can remain sufficiently within order.
  Seven months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared in the Chamber when he introduced the Budget and proudly boasted that we were in the seventh successive year of successful economic growth. No doubt tomorrow we will hear similar claims. Some of us have challenged those remarks, not least in speeches during that month and in June during the debate on the Queen's Speech. We pointed to the over-stretching of the economic elastic, particularly in the case of the American budget and trade deficits. We also pointed to the recession, which is clearly now on its way.
  The Bill, which Parliament has just authorised, gives the lie to the promise by the Chancellor that the economy

  749
  is in line with his assessment. What is the definition of a successful economy if it introduces a Bill that specifically introduces new cuts for those least able to afford them? What is the definition of a healthy economy if it needs to abolish 55p a week of industrial death benefit to widows and to axe the widowers' pensions? The reality is that the Bill, together with tomorrow's so-called Employment Bill, is in preparation for the increasing economic storms of the months and years ahead. It attempts to make the working class of this country, especially the poorest sections of the working class, pay for the crisis in the capitalist economy which is not of their making. Simultaneously, it attempts to constrict the ability of their trade union organisations to resist those attacks.
  There are a number of odious clauses in the Bill, but the constrictions of the money resolution debate will not allow me to deal with them in the depth that they deserve.
  We heard earlier about the decreased numbers of people who will be able to claim unemployment benefit because of the clause that extends contribution conditions from one year to two years. It has been estimated that 350,000 people will lose their right to claim benefit because of that change, although Ministers were at pains to point out that 300,000 of those claimants will be able to fall back on means-tested benefits. However, at least 50,000 will lose benefit altogether, mainly women—particularly married women who are ineligible for those means-tested benefits—and young people.
  The change will affect the jobless count, as only benefit claimants are counted in the total. Therefore, 50,000 will disappear from the official dole figures. Yet again, the Government are interested not in creating genuine work for the millions of unemployed people, but in gerrymandering the procedures for claiming benefit so as to reduce not unemployment but the statistics.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even if Tory Members do not appear to be interested in this fact—[Interruption.] What my hon. Friends may lack in quantity they make up for in quality. At least they are paying attention to what I am saying, unlike Tory Members who are attempting to drown my remarks.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at an official count there were 22,000 unemployed people in Coventry and 481 registered vacancies at the jobcentre. That figure of 22,000 is at least 8,000 less than the true number of unemployed people. However, that gives us an unemployed-vacancy ration of 46:1. Even if all the unemployed were to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—who tonight accused the unemployed of being idle and not getting off their backsides—and succeed in getting one of the 481 vacancies, there would still be 45 unemployed people for every one who had succeeded in obtaining a job. What we needed from the Bill tonight, whether it be from the primary legislation or the money resolution, was not statistical sleight of hand, but new jobs for the genuine unemployed.
  We have heard about the social fund, which will make the poor pay yet again. A clause in the Bill made it clear that the budget that will be allocated to local offices to administer the social fund will include the amount that claimants must pay back on the loans that they may be granted. Therefore, the social fund will become a local poor box for people on low incomes. Future unemployed people will have no right to extra help with major expenses such as children's clothing, cookers or repairs which are
  750
  not covered by their weekly benefit. The system of single payments will be replaced by a system of loans rationed through the fund. I strongly advise all those who might read the debate, or extracts of it, to seek assistance from their local law centre or citizens advice bureaux so that they can claim their rights before they disappear in April 1988.
  We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that £350 million should he made available for the social fund, yet it is to receive only £200 million. The Tories have set weekly benefit rates at a miserly level. Inevitably, the social fund will be overrun by people who cannot make ends meet.
  The Bill and the money resolution give the administrators greater discretion to decide who deserves, or does not deserve, help. We are told that two social funds will operate at local offices—one for loans and one for grants. Local offices will be expected to keep within their budgets and not to operate waiting lists or review those cases turned down, because of the lack of money, for a minimum period of six months. The draft manual, extracts of which some of us have had a chance to see, states:
  "Single applicants or a couple without children would generally have lower priority".
  The manual states:
  "Loans should not be made to those unable to pay."
  Once again, the poorest group of those on benefits will face the severest cuts.
  We have heard that unemployment benefit will be cut for those between 55 and 60 if they already receive an occupational pension of £35 a week or more. I do not know how many Conservative Members understand working class people who make payments into occupational pension schemes. Those benefits are deferred wages, paid for while one is in work to enhance the miserable pensions that the Government give those who rely on state pension benefits. Those workers make national insurance contributions to cushion them when they are out of work through enforced redundancy or, as is likely today in former manufacturing areas such as Coventry, enforced early retirement and to gain them 12-months' unemployment benefit. Hundreds of thousands of men over 60 have already lost up to £700 in the first 12 month period. As the former Minister for Social Security and the Disabled—the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—admitted to me in a question in February this year. over a six-year period the Government have refused to index-link the abatement level introduced in 1981 and increase it from £35 to £48.40 per week, the level it should be. The legislation reduces from 60 to 55 the age at which workers become trapped by the limit. We have heard that a further 27,000 workers who have already paid their national insurance contributions and paid into their occupational pension schemes will lose up to £700 in a 12-month period. The irony, which seems lost on most Tory Members, is that if those workers succeeded in getting a job again after enforced redundancy or early retirement, they would again have to pay into the national insurance fund, which would not give them unemployment benefit if they again became unemployed.
  Earlier this year, we saw some of the Right-wing think tanks, which now seem to be represented by such hon. Members as the new hon. Member for Gravesham. Incidentally, for the benefit of those who did not hear this

  751
  earlier, the hon. Gentleman tried his luck some four years ago in Coventry, South-East and got a right sending-off from working people there. The head of one think tank—Sir John Hoskyns—is now the director-general of the Institute of Directors. The people involved in those think tanks said that employment should be counted only from age 25 to age 55.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nellist: I shall give way in a second. If we pass the full legislation, we shall make that prediction reality.
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nellist: In a minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—when I finish my point. If we pass the full legislation, the combination of YTS and JTS for those up to 25 and the abatement on occupational pensions, which reduces the level of unemployment benefit pound per pound for those aged 55 or more, will bring to fruition the promise from outside the Tory party that the only workers who count as really employed or unemployed will be between 25 and 55. Those under the age of 25 are fodder for schemes, while those over the age of 55——
  Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nellist: In a minute. Those aged 55 or over are to be put on a permanent scrap heap with the rest of a generation that the Government say is too old to work.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman referred to a right setting-down at the Coventry, South-East general election contest in 1983. If a right setting-down means reducing the Labour majority by two-thirds I hope that there will be many more.
  Mr. Nellist: As that has nothing to do with the money resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would no doubt rule me out of order if I replied—other than to say that I got here in 1983 and the international banker across the way did not.
  The House is being asked to authorise the Secretary of State to spend money on travel and other administrative expenses necessary for the implementation of the Bill. The core of the Bill consists of the total removal from all 16 and 17-year-olds of the right to any form of supplementary benefit. I regard that as equivalent to the introduction into this country of the work fare schemes now in operation in some states of America. Why do we need economic conscription to force young people on to a scheme which, if one is to believe the summer's £2 million television advertising campaign, is so attractive that every youngster of 16 or 17 should be jumping at the chance to get a place on it?
  If that were really so, the Government would not be having to introduce measures to try to force school leavers on to the scheme. The Government already have the power to reduce by 40 per cent. for 13 weeks the benefit of those who refuse to join a scheme or who leave it early. One figure suggests that some 2,500 youngsters have refused to take a place while about 23,000 have left early. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he was Secretary of State for Employment, suggested that youngsters left the scheme or refused to join them because
  752
  they preferred to go to discos. Lord UB40—Lord Young—who replaced him said that the youngsters preferred to stay in bed.
  I have discovered from most of the youths to whom I have spoken—as the civil servants in the Box will no doubt confirm, this is backed up by surveys conducted by the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission—that the three objections of those who leave the schemes or refuse to join boil down to the low allowance, exploitation by employers and no guarantee of a job at the end.
  YTS was never a bridge from school to work. Sir John Hoskyns, who was the head of the Prime Minister's think tank in 1981, drafted the original paper which led the Government from their 1979 position of cutting £29 million off the training budget to their decision in 1983 to spend £1,000 million on YTS—the intervening events included, of course, the riots in the inner-city areas of Toxteth, Moss Side, Brixton and St. Pauls.
  Sir John Hoskyns said that the main need for a scheme was to increase the differential between adult rates and youth rates, although it had the useful additional effect of reducing the official dole figures.
  As I have already explained, the problem in Coventry is not that there is a lack of willing hands but that there is a lack of jobs. We have 6,800 unemployed 16 to 18-yearolds in Coventry. A third of them—2,700—are on YTS schemes but 4,000 of them are unemployed. What we need in Coventry is not for those 4,000 youngsters to be coerced by having their benefits removed but for at least 4,000 jobs to be made available so that the youngsters can put their hands to them.
  If the Tories had taken the Labour Government's YOP scheme and uprated the allowance from £19·50p to the £49 it should be today, there might be fewer grumbles from young people about the allowance. Youngsters have been robbed of £20 a week. They know that it is part of a package involving the abolition of the wages councils for under 21-year-olds which was designed to reduce the level of youth wages.
  Some schemes are run by redundant shop stewards from manufacturing industry. They attempt to provide real training. Unfortunately, the majority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Prescott) has said, are "nowt more than skivvy" schemes and a substitute for older workers.
  The Department of Employment says that 32 per cent. of large firms and 62 per cent. of small firms have used YTS in the last year or two to substitute young workers on YTS for older workers. There is no guarantee of a job later. What can be worse than leading youngsters up the garden path with advertisements featuring Spikey Dodds playing for England because he went on a YTS course or someone else getting a job in manufacturing or packing when the reality is that half the youngsters go back to unemployment or on to another JTS scheme or to a job club?
  There are genuine and well-founded fears amongst tens of thousands of young school leavers about YTS courses. Opposition to YTS will become a major issue in the weeks and months ahead among students, parents, teachers and trade unionists.
  Two-year YTS is different from YOP and the old YTS courses. Youths on the two-year scheme are beginning to think, not so much like trainees but like young workers. They go into work at the same time as older workers, they

  753
  take their breaks at the same time and often do the same job. The difference is that at the end of the week they are paid a fraction of what the older workers are paid. That fuels resentment against YTS.
  The Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign, of which I am the honorary president, will lobby the House of Commons on 19 November to protest at the measures outlined in the Bill. With the unions, particularly the Transport and General Workers Union, we shall try to unionise the youngsters on the schemes. We shall try to improve their allowance and to end the disgrace which has involved 40 youngsters being killed in the last eight years. We shall concentrate on improving the training content of the schemes and try to ensure that every scheme is vetted by the health and safety inspectorate or by shop stewards responsible for safety.
  I believe that the action by the 250,000 young students two and a half years ago against the then Secretary of State for Employment who tried to bring conscription into the YTS, will he exceeded in the months ahead and that the young will take action against the YTS provision in the Bill.
  Tonight we discussed the case of Vicky and Alex Storer, 18-month-old twins who are so physically and mentally handicapped that in their short lives they have already had heart surgery, suffered brain drainage and resucitation—[Interruption.] Brain drainage might seem funny to Conservative Members, but those twins did suffer brain drainage and their mother had to carry an oxygen cylinder every single day of their short lives. I challenge them to go to Coventry to meet the grandparents, or to Bedworth to meet the parents and the kids, and then to say to me and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) that it is right to have the present restriction on attendance allowance that denies the under-twos the chance of their parents having an orange badge for disabled transport and the financial assistance that they can get in March next year when they reach their second birthdays. Let hon. Members laugh when they see those kids and meet their parents. I can promise that those smiles on Tory Members' faces—which have dropped somewhat now—will not be there the next time that the hon. Member for Nuneaton and I raise this issue.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman has set rather a dilemma for the House, especially his party. He may not remember, because he is a better shouter than he is a listener, that over the years the Opposition have consistently criticised the lack of take-up of schemes and benefits. The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the money resolution has criticised the Government for their splendid advertising of the various schemes open to youngsters. The next time the Labour party criticises the Government for low take-up of benefits and schemes, I ask him to reflect on the speech that he has made with such force tonight. It flies in the face of what we have had to suffer from the Opposition for many years. We are trying to tell people what is available. We are trying to help with "Action for Jobs". We are trying to do what the Opposition failed to do for many, many years.
  Mr. Nellist: If the £42·5 million that was spent on television advertising for the privatisation of British Gas had been spent on advertising to raise the take-up of attendance allowance—notwithstanding ministerial
  754
  promises of amendments to a Bill that is itself an amendment to the Social Security Act 1986—and other benefits of real use to families, I might have more sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's point.
  My opposition is fundamental to the Bill itself and to the granting of authorisation to the Secretary of State to expend money either on travel allowances or unnecessary administration to bring in the several clauses that the right hon. Gentleman outlined in his moving speech. If we had: been talking about extending the attendance allowance to the Mrs. Morans or the Vicki and Alex Storers of this world, there would have been unanimity on the need for advertising. If we had been talking about giving to the 500,000 youngsters on YTS something that the Government will be unable to grant—especially as we move towards recession—the right that post-war generations have always expected, namely, that following 11 years of compulsory state education the opportunity to use that qualification to get a job and contribute to society, there would have been unanimity. If, instead of banding the employed between the ages of 25 and 55, and saying that those under 25 are scheme fodder and those over 55 are past it—which clauses in the Bill clearly suggest—we had spoken of full employment, there would have been unanimity. The truth, as ever with Tory legislation, is the opposite. We have spoken tonight, in a country that is supposed to be in its seventh successive year of successful economic growth, of making the poorer sections of society pay for the top 5 per cent. to enjoy that growth.
  The Labour opposition, both inside and outside Parliament, is about challenging the right of a Government who, in their manifesto, said that they intended to ensure that child benefit was to be paid as now, but who, within days of the new Session beginning, froze child benefit. Tonight we are expected to believe that there really is a promise of a training place and a job—a chance to use their skills—for every unemployed youngster aged 16 and 17. Frankly, I do not believe the Secretary of State or the Minister when they make such assertions. The Labour Opposition do not believe those assertions and, when the people of the country read this debate, they will not believe the Government either.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether, under the terms of the money resolution, it would be in order for Back-Bench Members to propose an amendment to the Bill at later stages that would have the effect of providing that, in future years, child benefit would be uprated automatically in accordance with the Lawson-Rooker-Wise formula.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Portillo: With the leave of the House, I will not detain hon. Members long as I sense that the House wishes to come to a decision on this matter.
  I am not an expert on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I believe that my hon. Friend will have to take up that matter with the Chairman of the Committee or, if we were on Report, with the occupant of your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For what it is worth, my reading of the Bill is that an amendment on child benefit probably would fall within the terms of the Bill, but I am not the expert on that.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who probably prepared his speech for the main

  755
  debate, was disappointed that he had been unable to participate in it and did not want to waste a good speech or even the speech that he had. We shall certainly return in Committee to the many points that he made and we look forward to him being a member of the Committee.
  As far as I could detect, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East raised no questions for me on the money resolution as such. However, I would like to make it clear to him that, if it were not for the economic success of the Government, we would not be talking about £46,000 million worth of public spending for social security. That has been made possible by the Government's economic policies.
  756
  Because I was unable to detect any specific questions on the money resolution, I feel that there is nothing standing in the way of my commending the resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following—

  (1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums falling to be paid by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act by way of travelling expenses;

  (b) any other expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the Act;

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act;

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  Latin
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important subject of the teaching of Latin in our schools.
  At once I must report to hon. Members the extremely sad fact that Latin is under threat. It is not under threat from any lack of interest. My hon. Friends may be surprised to know that the numbers studying Latin are keeping up well since the days when they studied it. However, it is perfectly true that the numbers are not quite what they were.
  Latin is no longer compulsory for entry to Oxford or Cambridge. There are the competing pressures of the technical and vocational education initiative and the continuing encouragement of the Department of Education and Science for subjects that it deems to be relevant and useful. However, some 20,000 pupils take Latin at O-level every year. The numbers studying classical subjects at A-level has increased by some 20 per cent. over the past seven years and at any one time some 6,500 undergraduates are studying classics at our universities—over half of those go on with their degree into commerce.
  Perhaps more surprising still, Latin survives well within our state education system. There are still more than 1,000 state schools offering Latin despite the onslaught against Latin in some Labour-controlled education authorities, in particular, the Inner London education authority. Latin continues to be taught. The threat comes not from any lack of interest——
  Mr. Jack Straw: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by an onslaught by Labour authorities on Latin? I know of no such onslaught.
  Mr. Fallon: I shall be turning to the evidence, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
  The threat comes not from any lack of interest on the part of the schools. I am sad to say that it comes from my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Education and Science in their proposals for a national curriculum. This curriculum lists 10 foundation subjects, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured us would occupy some 80 to 90 per cent. of the school's time. That means that the remaining subjects must compete for the remaining 20 per cent.—for example, a third science, a second foreign language, business studies, home economics and classics. If 90 per cent. of the school week is to be occupied by the foundation subjects of the national curriculum, that will demand 36 of the available 40 periods. If we take one for religious education, we are left with three periods for all the remaining core subjects. If 80 per cent. is the figure that my right hon. Friend wishes to prescribe, we are left with eight periods. If we take one for religious education, there are a mere seven periods for all the non-core subjects.
  I contend that it is impossible for a pupil to achieve an O-level in Latin in the short time that will be available to him, even if all of it is allocated to Latin. However, the prospects for Latin are somewhat worse than that. There
  758
  is no upper limit on the time that may be devoted by schools to the national curriculum as it is proposed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Schools could concentrate almost entirely on the foundation subjects, and with the requirement to test at the ages of seven, 11 and 14, there may be every incentive to do so in the schools that wish to continue attracting pupils under the more competitive open enrolment system.
  There will not be any extra resources forthcoming when the national curriculum is put into place. Classics teachers, those who have been teaching Latin on demand within the state system, may find themselves transferred by their heads to teach other languages, English, history or whatever. I contend that Latin will not merely decline; it will disappear, and do so almost overnight as the new curriculum is introduced
  My evidence is threefold. The Schools Curriculum Development Committee in its evidence on the national curriculum has said:
  "The demands of the subjects of the national curriculum on time will inevitably reduce the number of pupils who can study Latin or a second modern language below the sixth form."
  The National Association of Schoolmasters said:
  "Important elements, minority subjects such as classics, now enjoying something of a resurgence, will be squeezed out of the curriculum."
  Most interesting of all, those who teach classics in our schools—I quote Mr. Adrian Spooner, the head of classics at Parkfield comprehensive at Chester-le-Street, County Durham, who has collected the evidence—have shown overwhelmingly that many Labour-controlled authorities are planning already to discard Latin. Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities are planning to do so once the national curriculum is introduced. The authorities include the Inner London education authority, Northampton, Tyne and Wear and Durham.
  That is the evidence, expert and accredited, of those who teach Latin. Where is the evidence of my right hon. and hon. Friends that that will not be the outcome? understand that the Department has not carried out a survey, and it is of no comfort to those who are concerned about the survival of Latin for the Secretary of State to come to the conference at Blackpool and say "Nil despérandum." I shall complete the line for him, which is
  "Nil despérandum Teucro duce, et auspĭce Teucro."
  There is no need to despair under Trojan leadership, my right hon. Friend tells us. In the absence of such safeguards and surveys, it is of no comfort for me to tell the House that the only comfort that we have received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and from my hon. Friend the Minister are the words that classics will still have an important role to play. Latinists will respond to my right hon. Friend's promise of Trojan leadership: "Equo ne credite, Teucri."
  Latin needs no defence or apologia from me. It stands in its own right as a vigorous, intellectual discipline that encourages clarity of thought and expression, develops powers of logic, judgment and imagination, and demands and rewards attention, application and memory. Indeed, it may do slightly more than that. Those who would argue for Latin argue also that it broadens horizons and develops early on an understanding of the more humanistic elements in civilisation. It also presents the opportunity to learn skills that are transferable—not only to the study of other languages, but to the study of other subjects also. Latin also affords us a corpus of

  759
  literature, influenced by common artistic principles developed by common stylistic canons and a culture that is complete in itself—with a history, a legal system and a philosophy. All those things are bound up in the study of a language.
  If it is worth studying literature at all, it must be worth studying classical literature. How can one understand and appreciate fully the literature of Shakespeare, Dante, Racine and Shelley without some understanding of classical literature? If it is worth studying history, it must be worth understanding ancient history. How can one understand the forces that led to the birth of democracy, or understand the rule of law and the legal system that still underpins our own, unless one studies ancient history? If it is worth studying philosophy, it must be worth studying Plato and Aristotle, the fons et origo of moral philosophy, logic and metaphysics.
  Above all, any study of Latin is, in the end, a study of one's own language. Half of all the vocabulary that we use is Latin-based. That does not matter simply for those who want to perfect their English, but for those who want to get on in life, and for job-seekers because one of the most hidden forms of discrimination in our society is not only that of sex or colour, but that of language—the so-called lexical bar through which those who lack competence, fluency and self-confidence in their own language cannot break. The study of Latin is, therefore, a means by which people can enrich their confidence and break through that form of hidden discrimination.
  It may surprise my hon. Friends to know that in some of the inner-city areas of the United States, such as in Philadelphia, Washington and Indianapolis, Latin is now being taught to deprived black children. Results show that those children with Latin have educational achievements that are a year ahead of those without it.
  My hon. Friends have an alternative. They can reconsider and save Latin—but not by making it a foundation subject; I know nobody who teaches classics who wants it to be made compulsory. Perhaps that was one of the causes of its decline. Latin can be saved by making it a viable option outside the core curriculum, but within the school week. That could be done by reducing the time that is allotted to the full curriculum, from the 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. about which my right hon. Friend talks, to 70 per cent., so that at least two non-core subjects can become viable and realistic options. Obviously, the remaining 30 per cent. must be devoted to subjects of proven academic worth that are likely to attract pupils of ability, but I believe that if Latin is thus available, many more will take it on through O-level to A-level and use it as a bridge to study further languages at university.
  If my hon. Friends do not reconsider, Latin will not simply wither away; it will disappear entirely from the state system within two years. It may survive a few more years in the private, independent sector, but is that what we want? Do we want classical languages taught only in the private sector and classical literature available only in private libraries? What would be more elitist than to confine the classics to a fee-paying minority? That would be an act of cultural vandalism for three reasons. First, it is a peculiar form of linguistic censorship which seeks to censor the knowledge of one's language. It is a system which would prefer people not to know what lies at the root of our language. Secondly, it is a further application
  760
  of a somewhat mean-minded educational philosophy. We are beginning to understand now that, while our comprehensive system claimed to extend the curricular range of education, it is now seen to narrow that range. The attack we have seen in some education authorities is a peculiar form of anti-intellectualism, posing as egalitarianism.
  The curious assumption, which my hon. Friend the Member. for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) correctly identified in his stirring speech to classicists earlier this year, was that a subject can be made more interesting simply by being made easier. Obviously, that is a false assumption. Obviously, it is wrong of us to deny pupils who find these non-foundation subjects outside the core interesting and attractive the freedom and room to develop their skills and abilities in pursuing those subjects. If we do that, we shall match the architectural barbarism of some of our new modern schools with a development of breeze-block minds, whereby pupils may well have been tested to standards and to various specifications, but whose minds are incapable of absorbing precisely that which might enrich.
  Thirdly, if we proceed with this act of cultural vandalism, we shall be betraying a trust. Each successive generation has a general duty to hand on its wisdom and knowledge to the next generation, and to preserve, enrich and transmit it. To deny future generations of schoolchildren access to that inheritance is an attempt to deny that we are what the past has made us and to pretend that it is not necessary to study what we were in order to understand why we are what we are.
  Latin is one of the keys to the stored wisdom of nearly 3,000 years of Western intellectual progress. Its very survival at the margins of our education system now depends on Parliament. I urge the House to reflect carefully before destroying such a tradition.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on his initiative in raising this subject for debate. I shall exercise a little classical restraint and speak for only three minutes.
  I do not think that I want to mount a defence of the classics because if we have reached the point where that is necessary, we are done for indeed. We are not only discussing the classics, but we are talking about a wider fear of a certain coarsening in our educational values. It is often said that the Government have only one challenge in education and that is to raise vocational awareness; the reality is much more complex. We must raise economic awareness, but also the quality of humanistic studies. The philosophy of utilitarianism is dismal and I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State subscribes to it. Education should and must be a social adhesive. It would be wrong to move towards a position where an important aspect of education was available only in return for cash.
  I want to make a rather obscure international point. It would be miserably ironic if we were to do away with this aspect of our culture at a time when even the Communist countries are rediscovering their past. Confucius is being republished in China, the Russians are rediscovering the importance of their history, and even East Germany is looking more closely at Luther. It would be horribly ironic if we were to look the other way now.

  761
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science faces some practical problems in finding space for the classics. I draw his attention to one factor that is frequently overlooked. The length of the English school day does not overstrain the children's capacities. I suspect that there may be a little under-straining of their efforts. I realise that this is a very complicated question. However, we should recognise that our children are, if anything, underworked, and that is certainly true with regard to homework. I underline the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and I subscribe to most of the points that he made.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I accept that brevity is essential.
  For 14 years before I was elected to the House it was my great privilege and, at times, extremely onerous duty to teach Latin. I therefore wished to take part in the debate and identify myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I support their arguments.
  Our civilisation and society have evolved from an amalgam of Christian religion and a classical tradition. If we sever ourselves from that cultural mooring, we will do ourselves great damage. In particular, one can argue that the national curriculum is weak in that it lacks flexibility and seeks to take up too much of the daily and weekly time of the school curriculum. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively to our observations.
  11.6 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am advised by my colleagues who are wiser than I that I should start my response to the debate with a little Latin. I thought I would start by saying:
  "In principio, Mulier est hominis confusio—Madame, the sentence of this Latyn is, 'Womman is mannes joye and al his blis.'"
  I am sure that that will not be lost on my hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I have enjoyed the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington together with my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) emphasised their case with great authority. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington would attribute much of the clarity and logic of his argument to his classical training. Possibly his alma mater of St. Andrews would be proud of him. Indeed, I am certain that my hon. Friend's colleagues who also went to St. Andrews will be proud of him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will be aware that he is not alone in his concern. In October alone, we received 119 letters from hon. Members enclosing constituents' letters about the place of classics in the national curriculum. As we have all noted, there has also been a lively debate in the newspaper correspondence columns. Indeed, the leader writers are every bit as exercised on this subject as are the educators.
  As I was pondering how to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington on the subject of teaching Latin and the classics in schools and the future of the classics in the national curriculum, I decided, as he did, to set my
  762
  remarks firmly in the context of what is happening now. If I may, I will follow my hon. Friend's lead and talk about what is being done.
  I have discovered that in the maintained schools some form of classics is taught in about 30 per cent. of comprehensive schools and about 50 per cent. of our grammar schools. In the independent sector, classics are taught in about 90 per cent. of the schools in membership of the Headmasters' Conference, Girls' School Association, and the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, the registered and recognised bodies.
  In 1985, there were nearly 33,000 entries for CSE or O-level in classical subjects—0·5 per cent. of entries in all subjects. At A-level, there were more than 6,000 entries in classical subjects—about 1 per cent. of the total. Although I warm to the notion that nothing should be done further to reduce the teaching of classics, I think that those figures show that classics are not on offer to all pupils and may reflect some schools' judgment on whether it is appropriate to offer the subjects at all. The figures also demonstrate the extraordinary variation between the curriculum of one school and the next.
  If we consider what is on offer in schools, we find that maths and English are common features, but, beyond that, there is tremendous variety which leads, all to often, to an unbalanced curricular offering. I quite accept that in many schools there will have been thoughtful and innovative curricular development without the basic elements of the curriculum having been disturbed, but unfortunately odd subjects have been allowed to proliferate in others.
  In a publication of some two or three years ago, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and f shared authorship, we wrote of the choice for parents, especially for the majority of parents in state education. We wrote:
  "This means that state education need not treat parents as customers to be satisfied. It can concentrate on providing what the producers, the teachers and officials, want to put forward, and know that the parents have no choice but take it. This is one reason why standards of tough and rigorous subjects decline, and more nebulous and fashionable notions replace them. This is why children are now 'taught' such things as social awareness where they were once taught to read and write.
  It is a reason why such bogus subjects as 'peace studies' and 'anti-racism' take time away from the teaching of history, geography, languages and mathematics."
  That is strong language, and not entirely without foundation. It is good reason for the Government to focus more sharply on subject matter and demand rigour.
  Where does that leave us with the classics? I believe that there is sufficient flexibility in our proposals for Latin to continue to be taught in schools that want to offer it. I have heard many examples recently of classics teachers' commitment to their subject, and I know that they will press hard for its continuation. In secondary schools, there will be scope for non-foundation subjects such as Latin and Greek. They will be available to all pupils in the first: three years, and especially at the options stage of years four and five. This will not represent too great a change from what pertains even now in maintained schools. I also believe that schools will have regard to the claims of the classics when planning their non-foundation provision.
  Perhaps I may offer my hon. Friends some reassurance about the amount of time that is to be allocated to the foundation subjects. It will not be laid down in statute. The amount of time suggested in the consultation document for the foundation subjects was simply the amount of time

  763
  that our professional advisers found was spent in schools where there was good practice. That amount of time, if adopted, would be 80 per cent. of the week, which would leave the equivalent of a whole school day per week for non-foundation subjects. That calculation applies to the average school and the average pupil. More able pupils will be able to cover the foundation subjects programme of study and attainment targets more quickly and therefore have more time for non-foundation subjects. I think that my hon. Friend will find that that is a means by which Latin and Greek can be taught to many pupils.
  It has been suggested in the newspapers that Latin or Greek should, if the school so wishes, replace a modern foreign language in the list of foundation subjects. I want to take issue with that suggestion. The study of a modern foreign language serves both individual needs and the needs of the country. Worthwhile skills in such a language are an asset which can be developed and put to use by people at work or in their personal lives, at home and abroad. Compared with many major trading nations, ours has a damagingly small proportion of people who understand and speak a modern foreign language. Knowledge of a potential customer's language can be a deciding factor in securing and maintaining exports.
  At present too many pupils, especially boys, give up their foreign language studies at the end of the third year of secondary school. Therefore, one of the main messages of the Government's draft policy statement "Foreign Languages in the School Curriculum", issued for consultation last year, was that the majority of pupils should continue with the study of a modern foreign language throughout the period of compulsory secondary schooling. That draft policy statement was, in general, warmly received.
  764
  I am also aware that a number of people—my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned this—believe strongly that the basic grammatical rules acquired through a study of Latin can be of great assistance to some people in mastering the complexities of the English language, and to others through its intellectual rigour and background of an ancient civilisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham talked about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed a committee chaired by Sir John Kingman to advise him on what pupils should know about language. I believe that the evidence on the beneficial effect of studying Latin has been put to that committee, which will report early next year. The English working group will then build on the report of the Kingman committee in its work on attainment targets and programmes of study. Obviously, I do not know what view the committee will take of the evidence put to it. I believe, however, that any subject, properly taught, can develop in pupils the habits of intellectual rigour, and that all knowledge combines to produce what might be termed a civilised person. Of course, Latin plays its part; but it has no monopoly here.
  My hon. Friend talked of hidden discrimination, due to the lack of knowledge of Latin. I leave him with the thought of one, Winston Churchill, who wrote in his recollections of his early years:
  "By being so long in the lowest form I gained immense advantage over the cleverer boys—I got into my head the essential matter of the normal British sentence which is a noble thing. Naturally I am biased in favour of boys learning English: and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honour and Greek as a treat."
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School-Police Relations
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the report from a working party of teachers and police representatives on ways of improving relations between schools and the police; what response he has made; and if he will ensure that the working party's recommendations are made available to schools and local education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the working party's report. He welcomes the co-operation between teachers and police representatives which has led to the report, and is considering his response to it in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  School Governors
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will be taking to ensure that the new proposals for the opting out of schools from local authority control will not discriminate against the children of hourly-paid parents in the inner cities and other areas because the parents cannot afford to take time off work to become school governors.

  Mr. Dunn
  All parents at a school will have the opportunity of voting in a secret postal ballot on a proposal to apply for grant-maintained status. The proposal will have to include information about people willing to stand as governors, and any parent could register an interest. Governing bodies are free to arrange their meetings to suit the convenience of their members. Employers can also provide paid leave for such meetings, and a number already do so.

  Parents' Meetings
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evaluation he has made of the annual parents' meetings held by schools under the Education Act 1986.

  Mr. Dunn
  None.

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the average change in cost to the residents of Camden if the borough of Westminster opts out of the Inner London education authority.

  Mr. Dunn
  The earliest date from which boroughs will be able to opt out of the ILEA is 1 April 1990. The Government expect that, within the new system of local government finance which will be introduced from that date, the financial effect on Camden residents of any other 498
  borough opting out of the ILEA should be broadly neutral. The precise financial effects will depend on a number of factors, including the extent of movement of pupils and students between boroughs, and the pattern of expenditure by the ILEA and the opted-out boroughs in relation to the needs and populations of their areas.

  Universities (Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that universities do not deny access by students to their examination results.

  Mr. Jackson
  The universities are autonomous institutions. Within the context of their legal obligations it is for them to make known their students' examination results at the time and in the manner they see fit.

  Political Indoctrination
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in view of current trends in under-fives and under-sevens education, what measures he proposes to introduce to ban political indoctrination of the very young in the state education system.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Education (No. 2) Act 1986 already prohibits political indoctrination in schools in England and Wales. Sections 44 and 45 of the Act impose duties on local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers to forbid partisan political activities by junior pupils and the promotion of partisan political views in teaching, and to secure balanced treatment of any political issues. Since these provisions came into force, we have received no complaints about any alleged political indoctrination of pupils aged under seven. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  Education Bill
  Mr. Straw
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in respect of each of the consultation documents issued by him in relation to the forthcoming Education Bill, he will publish tables showing the proportion of responses from (i) individuals and (ii) bodies and institutions which are (a) broadly in favour, (b) broadly against and (c) neither in favour or against the principal proposals of each document.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  No. Many respondents have commented in considerable detail, and responses could not readily be classified as requested.

  GCSE
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a report breaking down by subject the progress which has been made in producing full sample examination papers for each General Certificate of Secondary Education examination, stating in each case the number of questions which have been produced and the date upon which they were made available to the teaching professions for incorporation into their examination preparation work.

  Mrs Rumbold
  Information about the sample GCSE questions available from the GCSE examining groups is
  499
  not held centrally. I shall invite the groups to provide this information and write to my hon. Friend when I have their response.

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any members of his staff have visited the Peto institute in Budapest to study the system called conductive education which is used there; whether any educational authorities have sent teachers there to train as conductors; and what plans he has to fund pilot schemes based on the Hungarian experience in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dunn
  No members of my right hon. Friend's staff have visited the Peto institute. Information about visits by teachers is not collected centrally. The Department is providing £326,000 in order to fund Birmingham university's research evaluation of the Foundation for Conductive Education's pilot project in Birmingham; there are no plans to fund any pilot schemes although LEAs are free to organise such schemes if they wish to do so.

  O-Level Examinations
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered an independent review of the quality and standard of O-level examinations in England and Wales; and if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all those subjects approved for examination at O-level and the year they were introduced.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a review of O-level examinations, which from summer 1988 will be replaced by general certificate of secondary education examinations. Records of the O-level syllabuses currently available from the eight GCE boards in England and Wales are not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member on this matter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Timber
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of annual United Kingdom timber consumption by value and quantity, respectively, were imported for the latest available year.

  Mr. Maude
  Timber imports as a percentage of United Kingdom consumption in 1986 were 81 per cent. measured by value and 65 per cent. measured by volume.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to increase the United Kingdom contribution to the European Space Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. The European Space Agency's draft proposals, likely to be tabled at the forthcoming ministerial council meeting on 9 and 10 November look over-ambitious and very expensive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 500
  will be arguing for a fundamental reappraisal of the agency's plans and for an overhaul of its operating methods.

  Mr. Roy Gibson
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the resignation of Mr. Roy Gibson as director-general of the British National Space Centre.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. I regret Mr. Gibson's resignation, but that is essentially a matter for him.

  British Space Plan
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the British space plan.

  Mr. Butcher
  No. The Government have decided not to increase public expenditure on civil space above the current level, which is already running at over 100 million a year.

  BR and W Industries
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his investigation into the alleged illegal export of mines and other arms to Iran by Mr. Ben Banerjee and BR and W Industries.

  Mr. Butcher
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the Official Report of 21 October, column 811, to his similar question. I am not aware of any breach of United Kingdom Government export control regulations by Mr. Ben Banerjee or BR and W Industries and therefore no investigation is taking place.

  Blowpipe Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there has been any abuse of end-use on the export licence application in respect of Blowpipe missiles from Short Brothers supplied to (i) Afghanistan rebels, (ii) the South Korean Government, (iii) the Contras in Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is not the practice to comment on individual defence equipment export matters.

  Weapons (Export Licenses)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will describe the various elements involved in the verification of export licence applications involving weapons.

  Mr. Maude
  In considering applications for export licences involving weapons, account is taken of the type of equipment, its proposed destination and the use to which it might be put. Applications must be supported by end-user certificates, international import certificates or evidence of the contract or order as appropriate.

  A licence is not issued unless the Government are satisfied that the end user is acceptable and the end use will be as stated on the application.

  It is not the practice to disclose the nature of the checks made.

  Explosives (Iran)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representation he has received on the use by Iran of United Kingdom-made explosives; whether explosives exported to Sweden are subject to end-user certification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received no representations on the use by Iran of explosives manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  Export licence applications for explosives for all destinations, including Sweden, are considered on their merits and, depending upon the type of explosive, its end use and destination would normally require an end-user certificate or an international import certificate.

  Mrs. H. Braisdell
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the representations made to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw, on behalf of Mrs. H. Braisdell of 85 Thorngreen road, Manchester 22, about the allegations that a north-west tour operator showed not only neglect of clients, but also indifference to bereavement; if there is any action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade Industry replied to the right

  United Kingdom Imports/Exports of Cement 1987

  Quantity: metric tonnes

  Value: £'000

  Total Imports

  Of which Greece

  Total Exports

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  Quantity

  Value

  First Quarter

  162·2

  7,428

  24·8

  499

  21·2

  2,617

  Second Quarter

  284·1

  10,003

  38·7

  885

  23·5

  2,887

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  1. Cement defined as Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2) sub-group 661·2.

  2. 1987 figures provisional.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what proportion of the European regional development fund the United Kingdom had received by 1 October or the nearest available date in relation to the 1987 total allocation; and if he will provide a breakdown of which regions of the United Kingdom had received what proportion of the United Kingdom allocation at that date;

  (2) which projects submitted from the northern region in the United Kingdom had been accepted by the European Commission for European regional development fund assistance; and which projects from those submitted had been rejected by 1 October;

  (3) how many applications were submitted per month by local authorities to Her Majesty's Government before 19 May, and of these how many were accepted by the Commission; how many were submitted per month by local authorities to Her Majesty's Government after 19 May; and of these how many were accepted by the Commission.
  502
  hon. Member's representations on 26 October. He expressed great sadness at the tragedy but commended Mr. and Mrs. Braisdell for their responsible and compassionate attitude. He explained that the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA), to which the tour operator concerned belongs, was conducting a thorough investigation into the case. ABTA has told the Department that it has received assurances from the tour operator that, on the basis of a full report on the incident, it is fully satisfied that its representative acted correctly. ABTA has written accordingly to Mrs. Braisdell.

  Cement
  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide figures for (a) imports of cement to the United Kingdom in the first, second and third quarter of 1987, by both tonnage and value, (b) imports of Greek cement to the United Kingdom in the first, second and third quarter of 1987, by both tonnage and value, (c) exports of cement from the United Kingdom in the first, second and third quarter of 1987, by both tonnage and value and (d) the estimated total sales of cement, by both tonnage and value, in the first, second and third quarters of 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information for the third quarter of 1987 and on sales of cement are not available. Details on imports and exports for the first two quarters are given in the following table.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following the announcement on 26 October of the fifth round of 1987 European regional development fund allocations, the allocations to the United Kingdom in respect of projects can be summarised as follows:

  Region

  Allocation (£)

  Per cent.

  North

  0·75

  0·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·03

  0·9

  South West

  8·81

  7·7

  West Midlands

  22·01

  19·3

  North West

  16·06

  14·1

  Wales

  20·18

  17·7

  Scotland

  18·81

  16·5

  Northern Ireland

  26·11

  23·0

  Total

  113·76

  100

  The allocations in respect of United Kingdom projects represent approximately 5 per cent. of the 1987 European

  503
  Community budget for the European regional development fund. To date 53 per cent. of the fund has been allocated on projects, programmes and studies. We have not yet received an analysis of these from the Commission.

  Three further allocations in respect of 1987 remain to be announced. A region's position should be judged on the basis of all the allocations in a year. Final decisions rest with the European Commission.

  To date, in 1987, six projects to the value of £660,000 in the northern region have been granted European regional development fund support. Eighty-four applications from the northern region have been made to the value of £108 million. Further awards to the region are likely. Seventeen projects from the northern region were rejected or withdrawn.

  Information is not collected in such a way as to permit an analysis of local authority projects submitted to Her Majesty's Government before or after 19 May. However, the number of projects submitted to the European Commission so far in 1987 is 352, of which 205 were submitted before 19 May. Of these projects, 15 have so far been approved by the Commission. During the course of 1987 a further 29 projects have been approved which were submitted in 1986 or earlier.

  Home Accidents (Statistics)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the consumer safety unit has obtained information from other European countries about the application of circuit breakers in the prevention of accidents in the home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Information obtained on the experience of other countries with residual current circuit breakers has reinforced my view of the value of these devices in preventing accidents. I hope to announce in the new year a collaborative programme with industry aimed at promoting their wider acceptance and use.

  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people were treated at hospitals in the home accident surveillance system during 1986 as a result of an electrical current accident in the home; what is his estimate for the figures for the whole of the United Kingdom in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The most recent 12 months for which detailed information is available from the home accident surveillance system cover the period November 1985 to November 1986. During this time, this system recorded details of 88 people who were treated at its 20 hospitals in England and Wales as a result of an electric current accident.

  This number is too small to make a reliable estimate of the annual number of such accidents for the whole of England and Wales, but the total is probably between 1,500 and 2,000. No figures are available for Scotland and Northern Ireland which will be participating in the home accident surveillance system for the first time from November 1987.

  The most recent year for which detailed information is available on fatal home accidents is 1984 when 26 deaths from electric current accidents were recorded in England and Wales.

  The above information is based on the tenth annual report of the home accident surveillance system, 1986
  504
  data; which is to be published on 11 November 1987. This report includes more information on the electric current accidents referred to, as well as details of many other types of accidents in the home.

  Small Factory Units (Southport)
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to give Government support for small factory units in the Southport area.

  Mr. Atkins
  English Estates is currently discussing with Sefton district council and with a local enterprise agency its possible involvement in a development of small managed units in the Southport area.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the amounts of hot-rolled steel imported in the United Kingdom, by cash and by tonnes, for each of the years from 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom imports of ECSC treaty products1

  Value

  Quantity

  (£ million)

  (million tonnes)

  c.i.f.

  21980

  988

  4·00

  1981

  655

  2·80

  1982

  848

  3·30

  1983

  791

  2·91

  1984

  883

  2·95

  1985

  1,059

  3·21

  1986

  1,140

  3·55

  1 Due to changes in statistical definitions for steel products over the period since 1980, information is only readily available for total imports of ECSC treaty products. The amounts shown mainly cover hot-rolled products but also include cold-rolled sheets and plate.

  2 Affected by steel strike.

  Source: Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau.

  Aircraft (Imports)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the cost of importing foreign-made (a) military and (b) civil aircraft, with countries of origin, into the United Kingdom for each of the years from 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Country of origin data are not available. Imports of aircraft, by value, for each year since 1979 are given in the following table.

  Imports of Aircraft 1979–1986

  £ million

  Military

  Civil

  Total

  1979

  *

  *

  364·5

  1980

  *

  *

  943·7

  1981

  69·9

  226·7

  296·5

  1982

  68·7

  244·2

  312·8

  1983

  16·5

  398·5

  415·0

  1984

  171·9

  478·5

  650·4

  1985

  42·5

  885·9

  928·4

  1986

  31·0

  352·8

  383·8

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:
  505
  * Figures not available due to revised coverage of aircraft.

  2. Figures for 1986 provisional.

  3. The figures include aircraft manufactured jointly by the United Kingdom and foreign companies.

  Imports of Textiles 1979–1986

  £ million

  Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  26

  475·5

  376·1

  376·0

  410·0

  475·9

  596·7

  662·8

  546·9

  65

  1691·1

  1543·7

  1761·6

  1927·6

  2320·2

  2705·4

  3032·0

  3162·6

  Total

  2166·6

  1919·8

  2137·6

  2338·4

  2796·1

  3302·1

  3694·8

  3709·5

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Notes:

  Textiles defined as Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 2):

  Division 26—Textile fibres (other than wool tops) and their wastes; and

  Division 65—Textile yarn, Fabrics, made-up articles nes and related products. 1986 figures provisional.

  BA/B-Cal Merger
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report on the British Airways bid for British Caledonian; whether any time will be given for representations to be made by interested parties on the report before he makes his decision on its recommendations; and what criteria he intends to use in deciding whether to vary the basic recommendations.

  Mr. Maude
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is clue to report by 5 November. There is scope for my right hon. and noble Friend to take action only if the commission concludes that a merger would operate against the public interest. It would not be appropriate to speculate on what conclusions the commission may reach or what, if any, recommendations it may make. Any representations on the merger should be addressed to the commission.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Michael Delaney
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Attorney-General if he will explain the reasons for his decision not to prosecute those responsible for the death of Mr. Michael Delaney on 10 January, following the coroner's court verdict of unlawful killing.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service, having studied all the evidence gathered by the police, and the transcript of the inquest into the death of Michael Delaney, concluded that the evidence did not disclose the commission of any criminal offences.

  Immigration (DNA Testing)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to ensure that legal aid will be available for all poor families seeking to use genetic DNA tests to challenge immigration rulings; and if he will make a statement.

  Textiles (Imports)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the cost of importing foreign textiles for each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Imports of textiles for each year since 1979, by value, are given in the following table.

  The Attorney-General
  Legal aid is not available for proceedings before tribunals in connection with immigration matters, but may be granted in relation to an application to the High Court for judicial review of a decision of an immigration appeal tribunal or in relation to any appeal from the court's decision on such an application. Advice and assistance on immigration matters is available from a solicitor under the green form scheme to any person of small or moderate means.

  The cost of genetic DNA tests may be met under the green form scheme where, in any particular case, the normal financial limits for advice and assistance are extended for that purpose, but the decision whether or not to grant such an extension in any case rests with the legal aid administration of the Law Society.

  Mr. John Larsen
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Mr. John Larsen for carrying a forged Ministry of Defence police warrant; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The question of prosecution is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, I am not aware of any evidence that Mr. John Larsen was ever in possession of such a document. When he was arrested, Mr. Frank Larsen produced a document purporting to be a warrant card, but which was not. The question of his prosecution for so doing was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and he decided that the public interest did not require it.

  Treasury Solicitor (Costs)
  Mr. Gow
  asked the Attorney-General what changes he proposed to make in the 1987–88 cash limit for class XX, vote 29 Law Charges, England and Wales (Treasury Solicitor's Department) and to the Treasury Solicitor's running costs limits.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the cash limit for the Treasury Solicitor's Department will be increased by £287,000 from £9,813,000 to £10.100,000
  507
  reflecting an exceptional volume of work partially offset by a higher level of receipts. This increase is being charged to the reserve and will not add to the planning total of public expenditure. There has also been an increase of £912,000 in the gross running costs limit from £10,935,000 to £11,847,000. £287,000 of this increase is related to the cash limit increase, £517,000 is to cover the transfer of legal staff from the Department of Employment and £58,000 is a transfer from the Ministry of Defence for work arising from the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the European Court of Justice on the case initiated by the Commission alleging that Her Majesty's Government are in breach of their Community obligations by not levying value added tax on housebuilders, gas, electricity and other items; and when he expects a judgment to be made by the court.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been asked to reply. The oral hearing of the case to which my hon. Friend refers took place at the European Court of Justice on 15 September.

  The Advocate General's opinion is to be delivered on 2 December. This will be followed by the court's judgment, which is expected early in the new year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Prime Minister if she will take steps to ensure that Ministers have adequate contact with the data protection registrar during the design stage of major computer projects which process large volumes of personal data.

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the hon. Gentleman on 29 April at columns 133–34, under section 38 of the Data Protection Act 1984 each Government Department is treated as separate from any other Government Department. It is accordingly for individual Ministers to decide how much contact they need to make with the data protection registrar at the design stage of major computer projects for their departments. The data protection registrar welcomes close contacts with Departments in these matters at an early stage.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Prime Minister to which Government Department British Nuclear Fuels is

  Welsh Districts

  Local Authorities

  Housing Associations

  Private Sector

  Other (Government Departments)

  1978

  Aberconwy

  9

  104

  90

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  90

  135

  244

  —

  Arfon

  31

  —

  81

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  97

  —

  5

  —

  Brecknock

  10

  —

  105

  —

  Cardiff

  298

  91

  519

  —

  Carmarthen

  13

  —

  80

  1

  508
  responsible for (a) the military operation cycle and (b) the civil operation cycle of its reactors at Calder hall and Chapel cross.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 2 July, at column 144.

  Security and Intelligence Services
  Mr. Whitney
  asked the Prime Minister what proposals she has for the appointment of a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  In the debate which followed my announcement of the Government's acceptance of the Security Commission's recommendations in their report on the case of Michael John Bettaney, I undertook to consider a suggestion that there would be advantage in designating someone, not himself a member of the security service, to whom a member of the security service could turn if he or she had anxieties relating to the work of the service.

  The House will wish to know that Sir Philip Woodfield, KCB, CBE, has been appointed as a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services. He will be available to be consulted by any member of the security and intelligence services who has anxieties relating to the work of his or her service which it has not been possible to allay through the ordinary processes of management-staff relations. He will have access to all relevant documents and to any level of management in each service. He will be able to make recommendations to the head of the service concerned. He will also have access to the Secretary of the Cabinet if he wishes and will have the right to make recommendations to him. He will report as appropriate to the heads of the services and will report not less frequently than once a year to me and to my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Home Secretary as appropriate on his activities and on the working of the system.

WALES

  New Build Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the new build figures for (a) private, (b) local authority, (c) housing associations and (d) others, in each local authority area, in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not readily available by financial year, but the following table gives new build completions on a calendar year basis:
  509

  Welsh Districts

  Local Authorities

  Housing Associations

  Private Sector

  Other (Government Departments)

  Ceredigion

  41

  —

  215

  —

  Colwyn

  48

  18

  210

  —

  Cynon Valley

  129

  91

  21

  —

  Delyn

  41

  —

  218

  —

  Dinefwr

  36

  6

  36

  1

  Dwyfor

  3

  —

  128

  —

  Glyndwr

  54

  —

  104

  —

  Islwyn

  80

  —

  104

  —

  Llanelli

  117

  —

  137

  1

  Lliw Valley

  70

  —

  147

  —

  Meirionnydd

  14

  —

  52

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  113

  70

  61

  —

  Monmouth

  59

  —

  299

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  48

  —

  160

  —

  Neath

  115

  99

  174

  —

  Newport

  865

  29

  276

  1

  Ogwr

  160

  38

  349

  2

  Port Talbot/Afan

  64

  —

  71

  —

  Preseli

  140

  —

  181

  —

  Radnor

  22

  25

  104

  —

  Rhondda

  80

  —

  32

  1

  Rhuddlan

  39

  —

  277

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  209

  66

  261

  1

  South Pembrokeshire

  51

  —

  93

  1

  Swansea

  271

  59

  547

  —

  Taff-Ely

  167

  —

  446

  4

  Torfaen

  118

  81

  83

  3

  Vale of Glamorgan

  26

  138

  580

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  263

  —

  270

  —

  Ynys Môn

  120

  22

  331

  —

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  78

  —

  1

  —

  Newtown

  270

  —

  23

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  4,459

  1,072

  7,091

  16

  1982

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  81

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  50

  —

  151

  —

  Arfon

  46

  12

  87

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  67

  —

  18

  —

  Brecknock

  30

  36

  80

  —

  Cardiff

  240

  180

  694

  —

  Carmarthen

  21

  —

  260

  —

  Ceredigion

  86

  10

  149

  —

  Colwyn

  —

  34

  159

  —

  Cynon Valley

  14

  46

  40

  —

  Delyn

  7

  —

  134

  —

  Dinefwr

  2

  —

  39

  —

  Dwyfor

  6

  —

  64

  2

  Glyndwr

  43

  —

  101

  —

  Islwyn

  44

  12

  22

  —

  Llanelli

  26

  —

  67

  —

  Lliw Valley

  91

  —

  71

  —

  Meirionnydd

  16

  —

  55

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12

  154

  30

  —

  Monmouth

  80

  —

  211

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  11

  —

  133

  —

  Neath

  18

  —

  72

  —

  Newport

  172

  6

  304

  —

  Ogwr

  79

  49

  273

  —

  Port Talbot/Afan

  —

  8

  32

  —

  Preseli

  16

  —

  101

  —

  Radnor

  20

  17

  43

  —

  Rhondda

  27

  —

  27

  —

  Rhuddlan

  37

  —

  115

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  57

  21

  156

  1

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  99

  —

  Swansea

  126

  —

  136

  —

  Taff-Ely

  62

  —

  190

  —

  Torfaen

  48

  117

  142

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  49

  51

  267

  —

  510 511

  Welsh Districts

  Local Authorities

  Housing Associations

  Private Sector

  Other (Government Departments)

  Wrexham Maelor

  69

  41

  295

  —

  Ynys Môn

  59

  —

  261

  2

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  89

  —

  50

  —

  Newtown

  15

  —

  41

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  1,875

  794

  5,250

  5

  1983

  Aberconwy

  38

  12

  67

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  86

  —

  178

  —

  Arfon

  4

  —

  64

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  37

  —

  Brecknock

  24

  30

  75

  —

  Cardiff

  310

  57

  686

  —

  Carmarthen

  132

  —

  290

  —

  Cerdigion

  —

  —

  134

  —

  Colwyn

  50

  2

  261

  —

  Cynon Valley

  —

  14

  112

  —

  Delyn

  —

  —

  106

  —

  Dinefwr

  22

  —

  51

  —

  Dwyfor

  5

  —

  110

  —

  Glyndwr

  23

  —

  135

  —

  Islwyn

  25

  37

  75

  —

  Llanelli

  42

  —

  105

  —

  Lliw Valley

  90

  —

  153

  —

  Meirionnydd

  33

  —

  2

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7

  80

  75

  —

  Monmouth

  71

  —

  254

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  15

  —

  144

  —

  Neath

  71

  11

  58

  —

  Newport

  43

  —

  184

  —

  Ogwr

  9

  58

  375

  —

  Port Talbot/Afan

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Preseli

  —

  —

  104

  —

  Radnor

  —

  34

  40

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Rhuddlan

  40

  39

  108

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  73

  64

  109

  —

  South Pembrokshire

  6

  6

  65

  —

  Swansea

  29

  76

  278

  —

  Taff-Ely

  85

  —

  172

  —

  Torfaen

  83

  —

  25

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  24

  9

  256

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  62

  —

  295

  —

  Ynys Môn

  41

  —

  204

  —

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  169

  —

  89

  —

  Newtown

  26

  —

  51

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  1,738

  529

  5545

  —

  1984

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  35

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  39

  —

  170

  —

  Arfon

  28

  —

  47

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  30

  —

  123

  —

  Brecknock

  14

  —

  90

  —

  Cardiff

  344

  38

  695

  —

  Carmarthen

  46

  —

  403

  —

  Ceredigion

  165

  —

  189

  —

  Colwyn

  24

  15

  212

  —

  Cynon Valley

  40

  —

  102

  —

  Delyn

  —

  18

  140

  —

  Dinefwr

  55

  —

  60

  —

  Dwyfor

  —

  —

  62

  —

  Glyndwr

  4

  —

  131

  —

  Islwyn

  64

  13

  43

  —

  Llanelli

  —

  —

  45

  —

  512 513

  Welsh Districts

  Local Authorities

  Housing Associations

  Private Sector

  Other (Government Departments)

  Lliw Valley

  111

  54

  203

  —

  Meirionnydd

  12

  —

  25

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  9

  15

  68

  —

  Monmouth

  59

  39

  427

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  41

  12

  73

  —

  Neath

  76

  24

  55

  —

  Newport

  169

  54

  124

  —

  Ogwr

  60

  —

  359

  —

  Port Talbot/Afan

  —

  —

  15

  —

  Preseli

  —

  —

  83

  —

  Radnor

  69

  13

  106

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  —

  16

  —

  Rhuddlan

  59

  —

  183

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  79

  6

  168

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  1

  30

  161

  —

  Swansea

  105

  118

  211

  —

  Taff-Ely

  90

  24

  178

  —

  Torfaen

  38

  —

  214

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  20

  68

  448

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  61

  52

  484

  —

  Ynys Môn

  84

  —

  200

  —

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  93

  —

  76

  —

  Newtown

  62

  —

  19

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  2,151

  593

  6,443

  —

  1985

  Aberconwy

  20

  —

  260

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  30

  24

  98

  —

  Arfon

  9

  1

  98

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  48

  33

  53

  —

  Brecknock

  12

  —

  108

  —

  Cardiff

  107

  117

  1,165

  —

  Carmarthen

  28

  8

  120

  —

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  132

  —

  Colwyn

  —

  —

  235

  —

  Cynon Valley

  —

  —

  53

  —

  Delyn

  —

  —

  106

  2

  Dinefwr

  16

  —

  88

  —

  Dwyfor

  9

  —

  66

  —

  Glyndwr

  —

  —

  183

  —

  Islwyn

  21

  8

  115

  —

  Llanelli

  67

  —

  103

  —

  Lliw Valley

  22

  —

  180

  —

  Meirionnydd

  —

  10

  54

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  3

  113

  —

  Monmouth

  107

  —

  364

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  —

  15

  120

  —

  Neath

  16

  —

  50

  —

  Newport

  67

  84

  702

  —

  Ogwr

  139

  —

  351

  —

  Port Talbot/Afan

  —

  —

  12

  —

  Preseli

  —

  —

  34

  —

  Radnor

  10

  —

  79

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  12

  19

  —

  Rhuddlan

  24

  10

  129

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  30

  9

  109

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  20

  —

  78

  —

  Swansea

  57

  88

  78

  —

  Taff-Ely

  —

  68

  286

  —

  Torfaen

  31

  58

  181

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  18

  —

  159

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  66

  —

  207

  —

  Ynys Môn

  18

  —

  141

  —

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  81

  59

  66

  —

  Newtown

  —

  —

  45

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  1,073

  607

  6,540

  2

  514 515

  Welsh Districts

  Local Authorities

  Housing Associations

  Private Sector

  Other (Government Departments)

  1986

  Aberconwy

  —

  —

  156

  —

  Alyn and Deeside

  33

  19

  150

  —

  Arfon

  —

  9

  83

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  38

  12

  —

  Brecknock

  —

  —

  82

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  38

  1,219

  —

  Carmarthen

  18

  —

  145

  —

  Ceredigion

  41

  17

  171

  —

  Colwyn

  18

  —

  252

  —

  Cynon Valley

  —

  40

  52

  —

  Delyn

  —

  16

  210

  —

  Dinefwr

  34

  —

  54

  —

  Dwyfor

  4

  —

  61

  —

  Glyndwr

  —

  8

  182

  —

  Islwyn

  40

  —

  88

  —

  Llanelli

  40

  —

  98

  —

  Lliw Valley

  34

  14

  130

  —

  Meirionnydd

  —

  —

  46

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  83

  —

  Monmouth

  74

  —

  348

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  26

  19

  167

  —

  Neath

  26

  10

  90

  —

  Newport

  119

  74

  527

  —

  Ogwr

  40

  —

  275

  —

  Port Talbot/Afan

  —

  39

  35

  —

  Preseli

  9

  29

  70

  —

  Radnor

  2

  37

  74

  —

  Rhondda

  —

  12

  16

  —

  Rhuddlan

  44

  —

  143

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  15

  27

  131

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  90

  —

  Swansea

  —

  33

  313

  —

  Taff-Ely

  12

  20

  306

  —

  Torfaen

  34

  7

  134

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  36

  —

  383

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  11

  28

  422

  —

  Ynys Môn

  34

  —

  134

  —

  Wales Total (LA)

  Cwmbran

  88

  —

  30

  —

  Newtown

  38

  —

  64

  —

  Wales Total (All)

  870

  534

  7,026

  —

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when it is expected that the Pembrokeshire health authority's funding will reach equalisation with other Welsh authorities at the level recommended by the Yates committee.

  Mr. Grist
  The pace of revenue equalisation between health authorities in Wales cannot be predicted with certainty. It depends upon annual revisions to the revenue formula (developed by the Resource Allocation Working Group) for demographic and other data changes and the availability of resources for equalisation in the light of competing demands on growth funds. If there are no significant changes in the formula in future years and the scale of provision made available for equalisation in 1987–88 is maintained, all authorities in Wales other than 516
  Gwynedd should be within plus or minus 1 per cent. of their formula shares by 1990–91. Given that the formula is intended to be only an indicator of relative resource needs, I would regard such a banding as the achievement of a broad measure of equalisation which represents our current policy objective.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cost per pupil of teaching staff in each Welsh local education authority in 1978–79, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 respectively.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The cost per pupil of teaching staff in maintained primary and secondary schools is given in the following table. Information in respect of 1987–88 is not yet available.
  517

  £'s at outturn prices

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87 provisional

  Primary schools

  Clwyd

  254·7

  475·8

  502·9

  520·3

  555·9

  616·7

  Dyfed

  286·1

  544·8

  571·0

  589·6

  609·9

  671·7

  Gwent

  259·9

  478·1

  506·5

  503·0

  528·8

  602·8

  Gwynedd

  280·2

  531·0

  558·5

  584·0

  610·5

  679·4

  Mid Glamorgan

  257·4

  499·7

  531·6

  549·6

  583·5

  636·0

  Powys

  326·3

  575·9

  612·6

  637·4

  672·7

  745·0

  South Glamorgan

  253·2

  458·3

  473·6

  495·0

  528·6

  583·8

  West Glamorgan

  281·4

  505·5

  523·6

  538·8

  577·5

  647·5

  Secondary schools

  Clwyd

  369·3

  651·3

  703·4

  742·5

  814·6

  921·4

  Dyfed

  375·4

  676·5

  724·6

  770·9

  832·6

  951·6

  Gwent

  370·1

  670·6

  720·4

  769·2

  839·6

  960·5

  Gwynedd

  374·2

  667·7

  726·4

  771·8

  844·3

  959·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  365·7

  632·8

  683·2

  730·6

  789·0

  893·8

  Powys

  384·4

  680·9

  731·5

  786·1

  859·8

  974·4

  South Glamorgan

  367·3

  651·6

  698·4

  746·8

  809·8

  917·3

  West Glamorgan

  389·5

  721·8

  776·2

  818·0

  899·7

  1,035·7

  Industrial Support and Development
  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the annual expenditure for each year since 1972 on industrial support and development in Wales; how much of it was regional development grant and how much regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Expenditure on regional selective assistance and regional development grants in Wales for the financial years 1972–73 to 1986–87 is as follows:

  RSA

  RDG

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1972–73

  —

  0·9

  0·9

  1973–74

  4·5

  15·3

  19·8

  1974–75

  7·3

  32·2

  39·5

  1975–76

  10·3

  47·1

  57·4

  1976–77

  6·9

  62·4

  69·3

  1977–78

  6·3

  70·4

  76·7

  1978–79

  30·3

  71·5

  101·8

  1979–80

  18·8

  50·7

  69·5

  1980–81

  10·7

  103·5

  114·2

  1981–82

  9·2

  122·2

  131·4

  1982–83

  15·5

  121·5

  137·0

  1983–84

  18·2

  72·1

  90·3

  1984–85

  25·1

  92·7

  117·8

  1985–86

  28·0

  84·4

  112·4

  1986–87

  35·6

  88·7

  124·3

  Total

  226·7

  1,035·6

  1,262·3

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will construct for Wales a table in the same form as figure J7 in Cmnd. 9714 "Paying For Local Government", showing numbers of adults living in each of the households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge;

  (2) if he will reproduce for Wales figure J7 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government", showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge by (a) local authority and (h) parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Estimates for Wales of the total numbers of households which would have gained or lost 518
  had the replacement of domestic rates by the community charge taken place in 1985–86 are given in the following table. These estimates have been derived from a sub-set of the family expenditure survey of about 1,500 Welsh households. It is not possible to derive reliable estimates for individual household types or for individual local authorities or parliamentary constituencies from a sample of this size.

  Households in Wales gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge

  All households (thousands)

  Pounds per week

  Losers:

  10+

  —

  5–10

  16

  2–5

  137

  1–2

  109

  0–1

  223

  Total losers

  483

  Gainers:

  0–1

  266

  1–2

  109

  2–5

  160

  5–10

  17

  10+

  1

  Total gainers

  552

  Percentage of net income

  Losers:

  10+

  —

  5–10

  —

  2–5

  54

  1–2

  127

  0–1

  302

  Total losers

  483

  Gainers:

  0–1

  325

  1–2

  143

  2–5

  76

  519

  Pounds per week

  5–10

  8

  10+

  —

  Total gainers

  552

  Total households

  1,035

  Numbers may not add owing to rounding.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an estimate of the numbers of staff that a community charge registration officer for Alyn and Deeside will be required to employ in order to complete registration in the community charge register of all adults in Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No estimate has been made but an assessment will he considered in discussion with the Welsh Consultative Council on local government finance.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the date when he expects local authorities in Wales to have community charge registration officers in post.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A community charge registration officer will be appointed by each local authority and will be responsible for compiling and maintaining the community charge register in readiness for its introduction in April 1990.

TRANSPORT

  A6 Bypass (Great Glen)
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to be able to announce a firm timetable in relation to the construction of the A6 bypass at Great Glen, Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Initial investigations are now in hand. We hope to put forward proposals for public consultation in autumn 1988 and announce a preferred route in 1989. Subject to the results of further investigations and the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, construction could start late in 1992.

  National Bus Company
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount paid out in redundancy payments to staff employed by the National Bus Company in 1986.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from the chairman of the National Bus Company that in 1986 £13·5 million was spent on redundancies in NBC and its various subsidiaries.

  A423 (Road Markings)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to take any action to change the road markings on the A423 trunk road south of Deddington; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I am considering whether any changes should be made to the road markings in the interest of road safety. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I can.

  Motorways (Coning)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he is making to ensure that motorways are not restricted needlessly by coning off one or more lanes when there is not a worker or piece of plant along the particular stretch of road.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department's instructions to its agents emphasise the need to minimise coning off and, once lanes have been coned off, to complete the works and remove the cones as soon as possible. There are times when lane closures may seem unnecessary. Cones are needed to separate workmen from traffic and drivers from potential hazards such as excavated areas or setting concrete. Measures taken to reduce periods of closure include mobile lane closures for some routine maintenance activities and lane rental, a contracts regime under which works are being completed about 30 per cent. faster on average than would be the case under conventional contracts.

  BREL (Redundancies)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met the chairman of British Rail to discuss the programme of redundancies recently announced by British Rail Engineering Limited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The redundancies recently announced by BREL are management matters for the company and the railways board. The British Rail chairman has kept us informed of BREL's plans.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Aitken
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals have been put to him for the construction of a high-speed rail link between London and the planned United Kingdom Channel tunnel terminus at Cheriton.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  None, British Rail is not due to report to me until June 1988 on the outcome of its study into the options for augmenting route, seating and terminal capacity for commuter and international services in Kent. This study, and the need for it, is referred to in the consultation document "Channel Tunnel: A Strategy for Kent" published by the Channel Tunnel Joint Committee impact study team and placed in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament on 17 August.

  Rural Transport (Essex)
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to what payments have been made in Essex from the rural transport development fund; for which routes; and for what purposes.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No payments have been made from the rural transport development fund for schemes in Essex. Two applications are being considered at present by the Development Commission, for a community bus serving the Ongar area and a rural taxi-sharing scheme in the Rochford area. A further application is expected for a taxibus service in the Manningtree area. I welcome increasing interest in the assistance available from the £1 million fund of Department of Transport finance managed by the Development Commission.

  Al
  Mr. Jopling
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport why the surface of the A1 road is especially bumpy in the sections around Eaton Socon and between Markham Moor roundabout and the river Trent; what assessment he has made of the implications for the road construction and maintenance programme of this; and who were the contractors concerned in constructing these surfaces.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 20km section of A1 between Markham Moor roundabout and the river Trent was constructed in the mid 1960s and the Eaton Socon bypass opened in 1971. They were both built by R. McGregor and Sons, now part of Norwest Hoist Civil Engineering Ltd.

  The present condition of the carriageways does not require reconstruction or overlay.

  A series of small repairs was started in 1984 to the Nottinghamshire section to extend the life of the pavement. They have resulted in some reductions in the riding quality. The repair contracts, which will be completed by 1989, are being carried out by Nottinghamshire county council direct labour organisation, Clugston Construction Ltd., Norwest Hoist Civil Engineering Ltd. and Rush and Tompkins Ltd. There are no plans for any substantial maintenance at Eaton Socon.

  Mr. Jopling
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many new roundabouts have been interposed on the A1 road in the last 10 years; how many have been improved; and if he will make it his policy that no further new ones will be interposed in the future.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In the last 10 years, eight new roundabouts have been interposed on the A I in England, 13 have been removed and we have proposals in the programme to remove a further five.

  We have no plans at present to install additional roundabouts on the A1

  Traffic flows vary greatly along the length of the Al. In future improvement, it may be concluded that roundabouts are appropriate for particular junctions in the light of traffic volumes and other aspects of the local situation.

  A46–A47 Link Road
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if in view of the decision of Leicestershire county council to implement proposals for the A46-A47 link road to pass through the eastern part of Leicester, he will initiate a public inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The A46–A47 link road is the responsibility of Leicestershire county council as highway authority.

  I understand that it intends to hold public consultations on the recently adopted preferred route.

  A public inquiry would be held into a published compulsory purchase order if objections are received which are not resolved. Local authority orders are subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State.

  Scheduled Air Service (Manchester-New York)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what applications have been or are being considered for a daily scheduled air service between Manchester and New York; and if he will make a statement.
  522
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  British Airways applied for and was granted a licence by the Civil Aviation Authority to operate between Manchester and New York some years ago. It inaugurated its service in 1985. No other applications are currently before the CAA or the Department of Transport.

  American Airlines and Pan American World Airways have recently applied to the United States Department of Transportation for permission to operate between New York and Manchester. As stated in the Airports Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 9542), we remain willing to negotiate with the United States Government the basis on which United States airlines should have access to Manchester.

  British Rail
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will clarify his advice to the British Railways Board on the legal restrictions on trading between it and British Rail Engineering Ltd., with a view to allowing British Rail Engineering Ltd. to tender for new locomotive building.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  We have given no advice to the Railways Board on any of these matters.

  Buses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those bus services in the Dyfed county council area which have been put out to tender since October 1986.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on individual bus services put out to tender by Dyfed county council, or other local authorities within its area, is not held by the Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Written Answers
  Mr. John Marsh
  all asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the estimated total cost of answering the questions tabled on Wednesday 21 October for written answer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not possible to calculate the actual cost of answering these specific questions. However, following an inderdepartmental exercise in 1972, an assessment was made of the average cost of answering a written parliamentary question. This average figure is updated regularly and currently stands at £45.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Personnel Management Policy
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he proposes to introduce any changes to personnel management policy.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government will continue to develop new policies and adapt existing ones in order further to improve the effectiveness and professionalism of the Civil Service.

  Secondments
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many secondments were made between the Civil Service and (a) local authorities and (b) industry and commerce in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1986, the last full year for which figures are available, there were 56 secondments between the Civil Service and local authorities and 469 between the Civil Service and industry and commerce. The Government are keen that a higher level of secondments be sustained.

  Departmental Costs
  Dr. Hampson
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if there are any proposals to change the 1987–88 running costs limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the running costs limit for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XX, vote 1) will be reduced by £803,000 from £29,697,000 to £28,894,000. This decrease will be offset by a corresponding increase in the running costs limit for the Economic and Financial Administration (HM Treasury) vote (class XIX, vote 11) and results from the changes in the distribution of functions between the central Departments announced by the Prime Minister on 7 August 1987.

ENERGY

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the latest time scale for the construction and operation of Sizewell B pressurised water reactor nuclear power station.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Preliminary work on site started on schedule on 29 June 1987 after consent was given in March. A number of major contracts have now been placed, providing United Kingdom firms with unique opportunities. These totalled nearly £700 million by September. The target construction period to full commissioning is 69 months, and the station is expected to be operational by mid-1994.

  Mr. Devlin
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what effect the construction of the Sizewell B nuclear power station will have on employment opportunities in the energy industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that Sizewell B will provide an average of 10,000 jobs in the power engineering and construction industry and on site over a seven year period. The peak will be about 15,000 jobs in 1990–91.

  Electricity Demand
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what estimates he has for the increase in electricity demand over the next decade.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Estimates of electricity demand are the responsibility of the electricity supply industry. The forecasts for England and Wales adopted by the Electricity 524
  Council in October last year show a steady growth of about 1·5 per cent. a year in electricity demand over the nine years ahead.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Lofthouse
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to conduct a comprehensive review of safety at nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Safety at new nuclear power stations is under continuous review. The operators of nuclear power stations have a statutory responsibility for the safety of their plant. In addition, they must meet the stringent licence requirements of the NII.

  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to improve the security and safety of nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The security and safety of nuclear power stations are the responsibility of the operators concerned and these are continually reviewed. The independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive ensures that operators satisfy its stringent licence terms and conditions.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what developments there have been between the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Central Electricity Generating Board on the question of the long-term safety review at Bradwell nuclear power station; and if the Central Electricity Generating Board have satisfied the nuclear installations inspectorate on the submissions it has made to them on the issue of the pressure circuit integrity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 29 October.

  Alternative Energy Sources
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the projects on the use of alternative energies to oil his Department is sponsoring or funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We have supported several studies of processes for producing synthetic liquid fuels as alternatives to oil. However, results have indicated that liquid fuels produced by such processes would be far more expensive than oil or fuels derived from natural feedstocks, such as natural gas.

  Coal Output
  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest forecast for coal output for 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Forecasts of coal output are a matter for the British Coal Corporation. However, coal production by the corporation and its licensees in the 12 months to 10 October 1987 totalled 102 million tonnes. The figure for the calendar year 1987 is not likely to be greatly different.

  Mr. Riddick
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the financial support the Government are planning for the coal industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Over the three years to 1989–90, the Government expect to provide finance of over £2 billion to the coal industry.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the cost of electricity provided by the latest nuclear power stations compared with that produced by the most modern coal-fired plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The latest analysis of comparative generating costs made by the CEGB showed that the average lifetime costs per Kwh, in April 1987 prices, for the most recently commissioned plant at Hinkley Point was 2·82 per Kwh and 3·03 per Kwh for the first stage of the coal fired station at Drax.

  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what funds his Department is currently providing for research into electricity generation using renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The current renewables programme includes 94 projects worth over £45 million covering the electricity generating renewable technologies. So far this year 38 projects worth nearly £5 million have been initiated.

  Scottish Coalfields
  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current levels of production and manning in the Scottish coalfields.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the British Coal Corporation that during the four weeks up to 24 October the Scottish area produced 205,450 tonnes of coal, and that on 24 October there were 4,274 men on colliery books.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding his plans for the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Cecil Parkinson
  I have received representations from electricity consumers, unions, other nationalised industries and members of the public and will take these into account when considering the proposals for the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to ensure that, in any future plans for privatisation of the electricity supply industry, the maintenance of a national grid is a statutory requirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We are developing our proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; these do not envisage the breaking up of the national grid.

  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he proposes to impose any restriction on cross-Channel importation of electricity if the industry is privatised.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The cross-Channel import of electricity will be a commercial matter for the privatised electricity supply industry.

  EC Energy Ministers
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had, since assuming office, with Energy Ministers from other European Economic Community countries; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My right hon. Friend met M r. Burke, the Irish Energy Minister, on 16 September when they discussed nuclear and gas matters. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State represented the United Kingdom at an informal meeting of Energy Ministers in Denmark on 20 and 21 September. Discussion centred on energy efficiency, new and renewable sources of energy and the interaction between energy and the environment as addressed in the Brundtland report.

  Mineworkers (Redundancy Payments)
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the state benefits received by a mineworker or his spouse that are deducted from the mineworkers' weekly redundancy payments under the mineworkers' redundancy payments scheme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A former mineworker eligible for weekly payments under the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme (RMPS) may have these payments reduced by deduction of all or part of the following state benefits received by himself:

  (a) reduced earnings allowance;

  (b) supplementary allowance;

  (c) supplementary pension.

  No deductions are made from weekly benefits in respect of state benefits received by a beneficiary's spouse. However, where state benefits received by an RMPS beneficiary or his spouse affect the unemployment benefit to which the beneficiary would have been entitled but for exhaustion of entitlement, payments of unemployment benefit equivalent under the RMPS are affected similarly.

  Tidal Power
  Mr. Bellingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to encourage the development of tide-generated electricity in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Tidal power will be encouraged provided it remains economically viable and environmentally acceptable. As a result of present studies, some of which I announced in September, I hope that substantive decisions about the Severn will be taken around the end of next year.

  Mining Industry (Flexible Hours)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Coal in order to discuss flexible working in the mining industry.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the situation in the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Fawley B Power Station
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to receive from the Central Electricity Generating Board a planning application for a proposed new coal-fired power station at Fawley B.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB has informed me that it intends to make an application to my right hon. Friend for consent to construct a coal-fired power station at Fawley B by the end of the year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for improving the energy efficiency of housing and public buildings.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have recently announced a strategic review of the work of the energy efficiency office of the Department, which will include the programmes designed to promote energy efficiency in housing and public buildings.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) 24 July, at column 520, if he has now received the nuclear installations inspectorate's audit progress report on Sellafield's safety improvements; and if he will now make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand from the Health and Safety Executive that British Nuclear Fuels plc has made good progress in meeting the improvements required in the HSE's Sellafield audit report which cover four main areas:—

  (i) plant: short and medium term improvements have been carried out. Those with a longer timescale which involve design and modification proposals, are being agreed between BNF plc and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  (ii) safety cases: BNF plc are on target for the preparation of safety cases which are required by the end of the year and priorities for work in subsequent years have also been agreed.

  (iii) training: training procedures for all levels of staff have been improved following a thorough review; and

  (iv) operating procedures: these have been completely reviewed and in some cases (such as shift handover) new procedures have been reintroduced. Quality assurance systems are being used to reinforce operating procedures.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newport West (Mr. Flynn) of 20 July, at column 19, how many meetings, involving how many staff from his Department, have been held between his Department and the European Commission following the completion of the consultations on Sellafield safeguards to which he made reference.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 20 July at column 19.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether in the light of the statements submitted on past Central Electricity Generating Board plutonium use by
  528
  Lord Marshall, chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, on 15 October, he now has anything to add to the statement made by the then Minister in his Department, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 4 February 1983, at column 206.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on 19 May 1986 at column 31.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) in what way the plutonium with plutonium-Z40 content less than 15 percent. produced at Trawsfynydd Magnox reactors (a) between 1965 and 31st March 1969 and (b) between 1st April 1969 and the present, has been disposed of;

  (2) whether he has any further information on the uses to which Central Electricity Generating Board plutonium has been put further to the statement made by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 4 February 1983, at column 206; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 15 and 18 April 1986 at column 330 and 525, respectively.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish tables of (a) the annual amount of spent nuclear fuel dispatched and (b) the annual amount of plutonium created, each by date and quantity, in the Trawsfynydd Magnox nuclear plant in the periods 1965 to March 1969 inclusive, April 1969 to April 1979 inclusive, and May 1979 to the present date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 12 March 1987 column 278.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 10 July, at column 289, on the publication of information on civil plutonium production, whether he is now able to make an announcement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 October 1987 to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether there have been any recent requests from the United States government concerning the availability of British plutonium for export to the United States of America for (a) civil and (b) military uses.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Exports of plutonium to the United States for civil purposes take place from time to time. The destinations and quantities are commercially confidential.

  On part (b) of his question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 15 April 1986 at column 330.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now make it his policy to publish a weekly input/ output table, backdated to 1 January, of spent Magnox fuel arising from civil Magnox reactors, together with the arisings of resulting depleted uranium and plutonium stocks for the throughput at the Windscale B205 reprocessor plant at British Nuclear Fuels Limited plc Sellafield.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department is considering any requests for permission to sell nuclear waste management technology to the United States of America.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No formal request has been made.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any recent request for permission to sell nuclear reprocessing technology to Japan.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Yes. As a result the Government have exchanged notes with the Japanese Government under which we have received assurances as to the use to which this should be put, in line with the policy laid down by the then Foreign Secretary in a parliamentary answer on 31 March 1976 at columns 514–16.

  Windscale Piles
  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy of 10 July, at column 289, if he has any

  United Kingdom coal imports

  '000 tonnes from:

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  2,164

  2,847

  1,791

  1,143

  1,987

  1,859

  5,390

  3,822

  United States of America

  1,031

  3,653

  1,954

  2,053

  1,142

  3,344

  3,145

  3,560

  Poland

  658

  446

  142

  320

  509

  1,359

  1,387

  1,217

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117

  399

  449

  Federal Republic of Germany

  229

  80

  132

  334

  482

  959

  746

  439

  South Africa

  38

  66

  80

  67

  58

  257

  725

  312

  Netherlands

  22

  23

  8

  43

  86

  304

  306

  218

  Belgium

  22

  14

  7

  34

  63

  232

  167

  169

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  81

  144

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89

  56

  USSR

  65

  46

  34

  12

  23

  11

  23

  48

  China

  58

  66

  —

  5

  8

  22

  34

  26

  German Democratic Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  37

  23

  France

  —

  —

  1

  14

  7

  229

  28

  21

  Irish Republic

  55

  41

  5

  3

  4

  17

  12

  11

  Others

  33

  52

  136

  34

  87

  110

  66

  39

  TOTAL

  4,375

  7,334

  4,290

  4,062

  4,456

  8,894

  12,635

  10,554

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Value of imports

  138

  214

  158

  182

  215

  493

  674

  443

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Average per tonne

  31·45

  29·23

  36·75

  44·86

  48·20

  55·44

  53·34

  41·95

EMPLOYMENT

  Mining Accidents
  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next meets the chairman of British
  530
  further information available on the decommissioning of the Windscale piles by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Plans for carrying out decommissioning work on the Windscale piles were announced by the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 5 October. A copy of his statement has been placed in the Library.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about proposals for privatisation of services within his Department's responsibility.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department currently uses the private sector for a number of services. Some others are being actively considered for possible contracting out and we are searching for more opportunities.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost and tonnage of importing coal into the United Kingdom, with country of origin, for each of the years from 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Tonnages of coal imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 are shown, by country of origin, in the following table. The total and average costs of the coal imported in each year, as at the United Kingdom port of entry, are shown at the foot of the same table.

  Coal whether he will raise with him the number of accidents underground and what the chairman aims to do to bring about a reduction.

  Mr. Cope
  I have no immediate plans to meet the chairman of British Coal but the reduction of
  531
  underground accidents is the subject of continual dialogue between the industry and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries, which investigates fatal and major injury accidents in mines.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if an inspector of the Health and Safety Commission will prosecute Townsend Thoresen Ltd., under sections 2(1), (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), 3(1) and 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 arising out of the operation of the ship Herald of Free Enterprise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Health and safety matters on board ship are a matter for the Department of Transport. In the wake of the findings of the coroner's inquest, the papers have been forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions who is considering whether or not to instigate proceedings.

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the responses to the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members" were in favour of the proposal that immunity should be removed from all industrial action designed to create or maintain a closed shop; how many were against the proposal; and how many did not express an opinion.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Responses to the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members" and comments on particular proposals have been treated in confidence by my Department. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that a substantial majority of those who commented on this proposal expressed approval.

  YTS
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the current providers of training places on youth training schemes in Coventry; and how many places each are providing.

  Mr. Cope
  Information is not currently available in the form requested. A national list of YTS managing agents who have the status of approved training organisation is being compiled and will be published in 1988. The list will contain details of the number of places made available by each approved training organisation alongside other information.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people, by sex, work full-time and part-time in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee travel-to-work area for the latest available date; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many people in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee travel-to-work area are employed in the service industries on the latest available figures; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979;

  (3) how many people in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee travel-to-work area are
  532
  employed in manufacturing industry on the latest available figures; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Lee
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: This information is available only for dates when censuses of employment are taken. The available information from the September 1984 and the previous September 1981 census of employment is set out. For parliamentary constituencies, a breakdown of employees by industry and by full and part-time status is not available for the earlier year.

  Employees in employment1

  September 1981

  September 1984

  Dundee East Constituency2

  All industries and services

  20,700

  20,200

  Males

  full-time

  n.a.

  12,500

  part-time

  n.a.

  700

  all

  13,700

  13,100

  Females

  full-time

  n.a.

  3,900

  part-time

  n.a.

  3,100

  all

  7,000

  7,000

  Service industries

  n.a.

  10,200

  Manufacturing industries

  n.a.

  7,600

  Dundee Travel-to-work area3

  All industries and services

  83,600

  80,300

  Males

  full-time

  42,000

  40,000

  part-time

  2,600

  2,400

  all

  44,600

  42,400

  Females

  full-time

  23,600

  21,300

  part-time

  15,500

  16,600

  all

  39,000

  37,900

  Service industries

  54,000

  55,600

  Manufacturing industries

  22,300

  18,400

  1The figures exclude the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's Forces.

  2To facilitate comparisons over time, the figures for the constituency are aggregates of frozen wards (ie, ward boundaries as at 1981).

  3Travel-to-work area defined in terms of frozen wards.

  n.a.—not available.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed by environmental and conservation groups in the United Kingdom under the community programme at the latest available date; what was the number in 1986; and if he is able to forecast numbers for 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: On 14 October 1987, there were 62,868 authorised places on the community programme, primarily on environmental and landscaping projects. On 20 November 1986, the nearest comparable date, there were 81,256 such places; it is not possible to forecast the corresponding number of places for 1988. Other places often include an element of environmental and landscape improvement.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the proposed changes in eligibility for employment under the community programme on recruitment by conservation and environmental groups; and if he will make a statement.
  533
  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The changes in community programme eligibility will focus the programme more closely on long-term unemployed people, a group most in need of the opportunities the programme provides. There are unlikely to be any major effects on recruitment, with over 1 million people eligible for a place under the new eligibility rules.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to a requirement that all firearms licence holders hold membership of an approved shooting club throughout the full duration of their licence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Applicants who apply for firearm certificates for target shooting are already required to establish membership of a rifle or pistol club and this is normally checked on renewal every three years. We are not persuaded that more frequent checks on club membership, which would be costly, would significantly improve the present control.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in making his proposals for a reform of firearms law, he will include proposals to (a) subject shotguns to the same control as firearms and (b) ban the sale by mail order of all firearms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has already announced his intention to bring self loading and pump action shotguns under the same controls as rifles and handguns. We also intend to impose a statutory obligation on shotgun certificate holders to store their weapons securely when they are not being used. As he announced in the debate on firearms in the House on 26 October, columns 28 to 69, we are considering suggestions in respect of a number of related issues and hope to announce comprehensive proposals by the end of November.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in his proposed legislation on firearms he will take power to ban gun shops from displaying for sale hoods and masks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates were reported as (i) using needles or syringes for the injection of drugs and (ii) involved in sexual activity in contravention of prison rules, (a) in 1986 and (b) in the current year to date.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in the form requested. The best evidence available by which to assess the level of any form of drug misuse in prison department establishments is the number of finds of substances or implements. In 1986, there were some 2,300 reports of such finds, the great majority of which were of cannabis or of implements for smoking cannabis. Finds of 27 needles and 41 syringes were reported. Some of the finds of needles and syringes were associated. In the first eight months of the current year, 929 reports were received, of 534
  which the great majority again concerned finds of cannabis and related implements. During the same period, nine needles and 13 syringes were reported to have been found. Again, some of the finds of needles and syringes were associated.

  There is no disciplinary offence under the rules which relate specifically to sexual activity and it is not possible to identify separately charges in relation to such activity.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses there have been to each of the indexes of the Police National Computer over the last year; and how many of these retrieved data from more than one index.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The total number of accesses to each of the indices of the police national computer in the year to October 1987 was as follows:

  Index

  Number of accesses

  1 Stolen and suspect vehicles

  19,397,934

  2 Vehicle owners

  3 Chassis/engine numbers

  645,624

  4 Fingerprints

  217,953

  5 Fingerprints—Scenes of crime

  13,697

  6 Criminal names

  10

  7 Wanted/missing persons

  1,691,799

  8 Disqualified drivers

  716,259

  9 Convictions

  357,406

  10 Major investigations

  134,365

  11 Crime pattern analysis

  147,906

  There have also been the following joint accesses:

  Number

  To indices 6, 7 and 9

  1,616,713

  To indices 6, 7, 8 and 9

  6,024,344

  To indices 4, 6 and 9

  524,680

  To indices 6 and 9

  1,135,707

  1 All accesses to the criminal names index are now shown as joint accesses in the above table, as requests for criminal names information will in addition automatically generate information from the convictions application.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications for Her Majesty's Government's eventual ratification of the European convention covering automated data processing of the universities' code of practice on subject access.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to publish the number of certificates signed under section 27 of the Data Protection Act.

  (2) if he will seek powers under the Data Protection Act to enable him to oblige universities to permit subject access to examination marks.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  Nationality
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will accept as valid all application

  535
  forms under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 received by his Department by 31 December, thus permitting corrections to be made after the deadline.

  Mr. Renton
  We will normally he prepared to treat applications received on or before 31 December 1987 as if they had been valid even though the application form was not correctly completed, provided the applicant makes good the defect within a reasonable time of being requested to do so.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Sims
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are being held in police cells; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Nine hundred and ten on 2 November.

  The lifting of industrial action in certain prisons in south east England last week was welcome. The police and prison services are now working hard to clear prisoners from police cells. That involves moving a large number of prisoners around the country and will take about a fortnight to complete.

  It is now operationally sensible to hand back Rollestone camp on Salisbury plain for military use. The use of the camp, which was among the package of measures I announced on 16 July, provided a measure of relief until the greater effects of the change in the remission rules were felt in late August. It has made a useful contribution to that end, accommodating more than 400 prisoners since it opened, of which the overwhelming majority were category C sentenced prisoners.

  Later industrial action taken by the Prison Officers' Association at certain prisons in the south east created a different situation. It resulted in a rapid build up of remand prisoners in police cells although space existed within the prisons concerned. Although a number of carefully selected prisoners awaiting trial have been accommodated in Rollestone camp it is not suitable for use wholly as a remand establishment. It is a long way from the courts and the dormitory accommodation is not right from the security point of view for most prisoners who have been refused bail and are normally put in category B. Rollestone has had to be staffed entirely by the prison service and the staff concerned could be better deployed elsewhere.

  With the suspension of industrial action and with many establishments changing to "fresh start" working, the staff at Rollestone can now play a more effective part by returning to the permanent prison system. It was always the intention that the camp should be returned to military use at about this time. The possibility will remain to reopening it if the need arises.

  This assessment of operational need is not affected by the proposed ballot of POA members.

  Forensic Science Tests
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has now taken to develop forensic science testing; and what study he has given to proposals to make available independent forensic science tests to defendants.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Defendants are already able to engage forensic scientists from the private sector if they wish, and we see no need for Government action on this matter.
  536
  We will continue to support the work of the forensic science service central research establishment at Aldermaston in developing forensic science techniques.

  Life-sentence Prisoners
  Mr. Iain Mills
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government of maintaining those serving life sentences in prisons in 1979, 1983, 1985 and 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible to distinguish the costs of keeping different types of prisoner in prison. The average net operating cost of keeping an inmate in custody during the financial years quoted below was:

  £

  1979–80

  7,072

  1983–84

  12,168

  1985–86

  12,792

  1986–87

  1—

  1 Not yet available.

  Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what figures he has on the operation of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main provisions of the Act have been in force since 12 January 1987. Information about the numbers and value of confiscation orders made under section 1 is being collected centrally, and will be published in the criminal statistics for 1987. In addition, I understand that the High Court, by 27 October, had made 122 restraint or charging orders under sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The precise value of property affected by restraint and charging orders cannot readily be identified: a restraint order may affect the whole of a person's property, and the value of the property may not have been determined at that stage.

  Dangerous Weapons
  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take further measures to protect the public from people who use dangerous weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend indicated in the debate on firearms in the House on 26 October (columns 35–41), the Government intend to introduce a new Firearms Bill before Christmas to strengthen existing controls. As for other potentially offensive weapons, provisions have been added to the Criminal Justice Bill, currently in another place, which will enable the manufacture, sale and importation of specified weapons (other than firearms and crossbows) to be prohibited and which broadly will make it an offence to carry a bladed or sharply pointed article in public without good reason.

  Television Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons in Northern Ireland have been prosecuted for non-payment of television licences in Northern Ireland in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Renton
  The information available relates to the following financial years:
  537

  Year

  Prosecutions

  1979–80

  139

  1980–81

  8

  1981–82

  133

  1982–83

  341

  1983–84

  575

  1984–85

  645

  1985–86

  782

  1986–87

  838

  1987 to date

  435

  Extradition
  Mr. William Rose
  asked the Secretary of State fot the Home Department how many requests for the extradition

  Requests received in England and Wales from the Republic of Ireland for return of persons under the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965

  Requests received

  Requests granted

  1Requests refused

  2Requests not acted on for other reasons

  1982

  9

  7

  —

  2

  1983

  15

  11

  —

  4

  1984

  31

  24

  —

  7

  1985

  29

  18

  —

  11

  1986

  15

  5

  3

  7

  1In these cases the warrant was held by a court to be defective.

  2eg. because the fugitive was at the time serving a prison sentence in this country or could not be traced.

  Knives
  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in his legislation to exert greater control over the use of knives in public he will ban the display for sale in gun shops of knives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to do so. Our proposals to ban the sale of offensive weapons for which there is no legitimate use may bear indirectly on the display of a very limited number of knives.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Terry Fields
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give national figures, brigade by brigade, on reductions in establishments, for the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, for the British fire service: and how many of these reductions apply to (a) whole-time posts, (b) part-time posts and (c) non-operational posts.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information sought can be derived from the annual reports of HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services for England and Wales and for Scotland for the relevant years, copies of which are in the Library.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have registered for British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, for each week in September and October in (a) Leeds, West, (b) Leeds metropolitan district council area and (c) England.

  Mr. Renton
  This information is not available.
  538
  of persons from England and Wales to the Republic of Ireland have been received in each of the last five years; and how many of these requests have been (a) granted and (b)refused.

  Mr. John Patten
  The return of fugitives to and from the Republic of Ireland takes place on the basis of individual warrants of arrest. The table below provides figures for the number of persons who were the subject of such warrants from the Republic for the years 1982 to 1986.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in line with the Swedish model, he will provide facilities for the broadcasting media to phone up convicted prisoners to seek their views on the legitimacy of their convictions and to elicit comment on the state of comfort in which they are being detained.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests have been made by prisoners serving sentences in Britain for transfers to prisons in Northern Ireland since 1968; and how many transfer have been made as a result of these requests.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information readily available extends back to 1973 and relates to inmates serving sentences in England and Wales. Since the beginning of that year there have been 238 requests from inmates for permanent transfer to establishments in Northern Ireland. and 25 transfers. A number of prisoners made more than one request.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new appointment has been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Hurd
  Air Vice-Marshal David Clark, CBE, who is at present the military deputy to the head of defence export services at the Ministry of Defence, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the authority. He will take up his post on 10 November.

  Appeals
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take the protect the public from appeals for funds supposedly destined for treatment by unproven medical techniques.

  Mr. John Patten
  Generally speaking, it is open to anyone to appeal to the public for funds.

  Central Government responsibility for medical treatment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that variable premiums will he retained in any reforms of the European Economic Community sheepmeat regime accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I attach considerable importance to the system for paying variable premium to sheep farmers in Great Britain: it generates confidence; encourages orderly marketing and the presentation of good quality lambs; and helps producers' cash flow. In the forthcoming negotiations I shall be stressing these points.

  Free Butter
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he received on the 1986 scheme to distribute free European Economic Community butter; and whether he will consult the retail trade and charitable organisations on the administration of any similar scheme in 1987 prior to proposals being finalised.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I received a large number of representations from hon. Members, members of the European Parliament, charitable and other organisations, trade bodies and members of the public on the free food arrangements operated in the United Kingdom in January-March 1987. The European Commission has recently proposed to the Council of Ministers a permanent free food scheme providing for distribution of products held in intervention stores to the most needy. The Council has not yet taken a decision. I am reflecting on what scope there would be for distributions of butter and beef from intervention stores in the United Kingdom under the Commission's proposals if adopted. I am in close touch with the charitable organisations on this point, and will conduct appropriate wider consultations as and when necessary.

  Horticulture (Storm Damage)
  Mr. Nelson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will provide assistance in addition to existing grant schemes for glass-house growers who have suffered storm damage during the night of 15 and 16 October.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer, 29 October 1987]While I sympathise with growers whose glass-houses have suffered storm damage, these are insurable structures.540
  Many growers will have insured and, as the Prime Minister has already said, there is no way we can make equal those who are not insured with those who are.

  Forestry Schemes (Consultation Procedures)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all grant-aided and non grant-aided forestry schemes operating in the United Kingdom at present, indicating where applicable the nature of consultation procedures involved prior to planting.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer, 26 October 1987]Grant aid for forestry in Great Britain is provided under the Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme and broadleaved woodland grant scheme. The consultation procedures are set out in the Forestry Commission booklet "Consultation Procedures", a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. Similar grant schemes operate in Northern Ireland, but these are not subject to formal consultation procedures.

  I am not aware of any non grant-aided forestry schemes.

  Food and Environment Act 1986
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the operation and effectiveness of the terms of the Food and Environment Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer. 26 October 1987]Yes. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 has now been brought into effect. Part I has been useful in controlling the movement and slaughter of sheep from upland areas contaminated by radioactivity resulting from the Chernobyl accident. Part II has introduced improved controls over the disposal of waste at sea. For the Government's progress in implementing the powers in part III I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), on 15 July (col.535).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Petty Officer John Black
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of his diplomatic exchanges with the Foreign Ministry of Spain regarding investigations within Spain by British police relating to the unlawful killing of Petty Officer John Black, Royal Navy, in Sabinillas over Christmas 1983; and what further initiative he intends to take in this matter.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Spanish authorities have recently given permission for investigations to be undertaken within Spain by British police in connection with the death of Petty Officer Black.

  I shall await the outcome of these investigations before deciding what, if any, further initiative is possible.

  Under-Secretaries of State
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom-based under-secretaries of state there are in his Department; of what age and length of service; and if he will list their responsibilities.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the diplomatic wing, in addition to the permanent under-secretary and deputy permanent under-secretary, there are 19 United Kingdom-based under-secretaries currently working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Their responsibilities, age and length of service are as follows:

  Responsibilities

  Age

  Length of Service

  Deputy Under Secretaries

  The Americas, Caribbean and Far East

  53

  17

  The Commonwealth, Africa and the Middle East

  52

  27

  Defence, Arms Control, Nuclear matters, Security, Ireland

  51

  25

  Trade, Energy, Science, Transport, European Community

  55

  32

  Chief Clerk (Administration of the Diplomatic Service)

  58

  33

  Assistant Under Secretaries of Slate (AUSS)

  Africa and Commonwealth Coordination

  49

  22

  Europe

  53

  32

  Far East, South Asia, Pacific

  53

  29

  Latin America, Caribbean and Atlantic

  53

  26

  Middle East, North Africa

  50

  26

  Defence, Arms Control, Nuclear (non-proliferation)

  49

  25

  Energy Science, Transport, United Nations, Narcotics Control

  53

  28

  European Community

  45

  21

  Public Departments (Consular Visa, Nationality etc)

  54

  32

  Trade Relations

  53

  28

  Deputy Chief Clerk and Chief Inspector

  49

  24

  Finance, Audit, Office Services, Overseas Estate

  50

  27

  Protocol, Vice Marshall of the Diplomatic Corps

  53

  29

  Communications

  56

  34

  In the aid wing, in addition to the permanent secretary and deputy secretary, there are seven United Kingdom-based under-secretaries of state as follows:

  Responsibilities

  Age

  Length of Service

  Africa

  50

  24

  Asia

  54

  20

  Economist

  57

  21

  Establishments and Overseas Manpower

  44

  22

  Finance

  43

  20

  Internal Division

  57

  35

  Natural Resources

  45

  7

  British Council
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new resources he has given to the British Council following the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  542
  Mr. Eggar
  The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the decisions of the Chancellor's autumn statement.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his reply on 21 October to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, Official Report, column 730, he will list the fundamental differences between British and United States foreign policy in the Gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  We share with the Americans a determination to uphold freedom of navigation in the Gulf as part of a policy of bringing the wasteful and destabilising Iran-Iraq conflict to a negotiated end. We each have naval forces in the Gulf for this purpose, but their tasks and methods of operation are fundamentally different. The Armilla patrol exists to provide reassurance to British ships, and to accompany their passage to the best of its limited resources. It provides no guarantee of protection and does not convoy or escort. Nor does it operate beyond the Strait of Hormuz and the southern Gulf.

  Arms Control
  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his departmental staff are currently employed on arms control and disarmament verification research.

  Mr. Mellor
  Fourteen people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office work either full or part-time on aspects of our arms control and disarmament policy which includes verification research.

  Dr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any discussions with his counterparts in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America about the arrangements for intrusive verification by Soviet nationals at the cruise missile bases at Greenham common and Molesworth as part of the current arms control and disarmament negotiations between the Soviet and the United States Governments on intermediate range nuclear forces.

  Mr. Mellor
  The details of the INF verification regime are still being discussed. The INF talks are bilateral between the United States and Soviet Governments, but there has been a continual dialogue between the United States and British Governments about all aspects of the negotiations, including the inspection arrangements. Any provision in the treaty relating to access by inspectors to the territory of the United Kingdom will have been agreed in advance by us.

  SWAPO
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a representative of Her Majesty's Government last met Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of the South-West Africa People's Organisation; and whether any future discussions are planned.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I met Mr. Nujoma on 26 October. No future discussions are planned.
  543
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the last meeting between a representative of her Majesty's Government and Mr. Sam Nujoma, President of South-West Africa People's Organisation.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Details of such exchanges must remain confidential. But the points which I put to Mr. Nujoma included our concern at alleged human rights abuses by SWAPO and condemnation of violence from whatever quarter, as well as our support for United Nations Security Council resolution 435.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the South-West Africa People's Organisation concerning the detention without trial or legal representation of 100 Namibians by the South-West Africa People's Organisation in camps in Angola and Zambia; and whether he has any further information about these detainees.

  Mrs. Chalker
  When I saw Mr. Nujoma on 26 October I again expressed our concern at alleged human rights abuses in SWAPO refugee camps in Angola and Zambia. We have no independent information on conditions in the camps.

  Hong Kong Financial Futures Exchange
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the Hong Kong Government have provided HK$ 1 billion to guarantee the completion of transactions on the Hong Kong financial futures exchange; and if there will be an official inquiry into the operation of the Hong Kong financial futures exchange.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Hong Kong Government considered that, in the light of the turbulent conditions affecting stock and foreign exchange markets around the world, and the effect this was having on the financial futures exchange in Hong Kong, use of the exchange fund to provide support to the Hong Kong Futures Guarantee Corporation, in conjunction with matching support from local financial institutions, was fully justified under the terms of the Hong Kong exchange fund ordinance. The Financial Secretary has said in the Legislative Council that the Hong Kong Government will be undertaking a thorough review of the stock and financial futures markets and of the Government's regulatory position. Details of this review and its terms of reference will be announced shortly.

  WEU (Ministerial Meeting)
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent Western European Union ministerial meeting in The Hague.

  Mr. Mellor
  The meeting in The Hague marked a step forward in the renaissance of WEU and in the development of a more coherent and effective input by Europeans into their own security and that of the Atlantic Alliance as a whole. A platform on European security interests was agreed that will guide WEU's development for the foreseeable future, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Ministers also discussed East-West relations; noted with satisfaction the practical co-operation between the naval forces of WEU 544
  members in the Gulf; and encouraged the continuing rationalisation and reorganisation of WEU's agencies. I am pleased that following the meeting on 28 October President Reagan publicly welcomed the willingness of the European allies to seek a larger, more closely-co-ordinated role for Western Europe in providing its own defence.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to his departmental equal opportunities officer for equal opportunities duties, (b) the other duties carried out by the departmental equal opportunities officer, (c) the proportion, and the amount, of the departmental budget which is allocated to equal opportunities work, (d) the number of occasions when the departmental equal opportunities officer meets with equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, (e) the guidelines issued to his departmental training officers and equal opportunities officers to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act, and (f) the action taken to facilitate jobshare, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 October 1987, c. 269]: There are two equal opportunity officers in the diplomatic wing and one in the aid wing. The proportion of their time allocated to equal opportunity work is 15, 10 and 10 per cent., respectively. They combine their equal opportunity duties with personnel management, policy and training responsibilities as assistant heads of departments.

  There is no budget specifically allocated to equal opportunity work. Costs are borne on many budgets and could be calculated only at disproportionate effort and expense.

  The equal opportunity officers meet their counterparts from other departments formally once a year. In addition, they or their representatives meet other departments' representatives regularly to discuss specific equal opportunity matters and participate in seminars and briefings.

  Guidance is issued to equal opportunity officers and training officers on all aspects of equal opportunities, including the Sex Discrimination Act.

  Following consultation with the trade union side, departmental procedures have been amended to facilitate jobsharing, part-time working and parental leave. A booklet was recently issued to staff explaining these and other equal opportunity initiatives. The aid wing is discussing with the trade union side a formal agreement on jobsharing and part-time working.

SCOTLAND

  Prisons
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the numbers of prisoners held in Scottish prisons in each of the last 10 years under the following categories: remand prisoners, fine defaulters, other short term prisoners and long term prisoners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures are as follows:
  545

  Average daily prison population 1977–86

  Type of inmate

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Remand

  706

  728

  691

  705

  746

  844

  863

  942

  1,092

  1,017

  Defaulter

  286

  309

  293

  386

  231

  234

  228

  259

  309

  330

  Other short term

  2,282

  2,271

  1,855

  2,050

  1,863

  2,121

  2,268

  1,938

  1,965

  1,951

  Long term

  1,597

  1,754

  1,746

  1,719

  1,678

  1,692

  1,692

  1,614

  1,907

  2,289

  Total

  4,871

  5,062

  4,585

  4,860

  4,518

  4,891

  5,052

  4,753

  5,273

  5,588

  Notes:

  (1) The figures are for all inmates in Scottish penal establishments including under-21's.

  (2) "Defaulter" includes fine and compensation order defaulters.

  (3) "Short term" includes those serving sentences of less than 18 months, together with those serving borstal sentences.

  (4) "Long term" includes those serving fixed sentences of 18 months or longer and indeterminate sentences.

  (5) Sub-totals may not add to totals duc to rounding.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the objectives of the prison system in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following statement, which remains valid, was issued on 30 October 1985 to all staff in the Scottish prison service.

  "The task of the Scottish Prison Service is:—

  (i) to keep in custody untried or unsentenced prisoners, and to ensure that they are available to be presented to court for trial or sentence:

  (ii) to keep in custody, with such degree of security as is appropriate, having regard to the nature of the individual prisoner and his offence, sentenced prisoners for the duration of their sentence or for such shorter time as the Secretary of State may determine in cases where he has discretion;

  (iii) to provide for prisoners as full a life as is consistent with the facts of custody, in particular making available the physical necessities of life; care for physical and mental health; advice and help with personal problems; work, education, skill training, physical exercise and recreation; and opportunity to practice their religion;

  (iv) to promote and preserve the self-respect of prisoners;

  (v) to enable prisoners to retain links with family and community; and

  (vi) to encourage them to respond and contribute positively to society on discharge."

  Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing changes in the provision of Government financial support, including tax incentives, to public and private sector housing, respectively, since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information required to produce a table in the form requested is not available within the Scottish Development Department.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what additional advice is to be given to community charge registration officers as to the sale of names and addresses of people contained in the community charge register, when the sale of the names and addresses takes place without the consent or knowledge of the data subject;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 7 July at column 99, whether he will consult the Data Protection Registrar before he issues orders under section 20(11) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Act which involve the access or disclosure of the personal data from the community charge register.
  546
  Mr. Lang
  Draft regulations on the registration procedures for the community charge system have recently been issued for consultation and a copy has been sent to the Data Protection Registrar. The draft regulations propose that the copies of the community charges register which are to be sent to the Keeper of the Records of Scotland under section 20(10) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 should be made available for public inspection after 30 years from the end of the year in which they are sent to him. The draft regulations also provide for the fees to be charged when copies of the parts of the register which are available for public inspection are made available for sale under section 20(4) of the Act. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether any amendment to section 20(4) of the Act is required to provide for any restriction on the parts of the public register which may be made available for sale.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has given to officials responsible for enforcing the ban on the carriage of monofilament nets following the decision of the Stranraer sheriff court that the relevant order is invalid; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the procurator fiscal has marked an appeal against the sheriff's decision it is not necessary to issue further instructions to enforcement officers. They will continue to apply the terms of the relevant order pending the matter coming before the High Court of Justiciary. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate to make a statement.

  Fokker Aircraft (Delivery)
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how late was the delivery of the Fokker aircraft to his Department's protection service, compared with the stipulations in the tender documents; and if any financial penalty has been imposed upon the supplying company.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The tender specification issued by the Department sought delivery by 31 July 1987 at the latest and the supply contract for the Fokker laid down delivery for June 1987. However during the process of acquisition it was agreed that extra fuel tanks originally scheduled for later installation would be more economically installed before delivery. The extra work resulted in
  547
  the acceptance of the aircraft on 5 August 1987 and as this later date reflected a decision to avoid subsequent downtime no financial penalty was appropriate.

  School Management
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the formal requests made by parent-teacher organisations and the schools councils for spokesmen to attend meetings to explain the background to the school management consultation proposals; how many of these requests were met; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Requests have reached me by a variety of means both formal and informal. No comprehensive record exists but as I have already told the hon. Member in correspondence I have received over 100 requests in total, and have accepted those which my diary allowed and successfully arranged for alternative speakers in but a few cases. It would not be appropriate for Scottish Education Department officials to attend such meetings.

  School Boards (Strathclyde)
  Mr. Wray
  askedthe Secretary of State for Scotland how many school boards would be created under his proposals contained in the consultative paper "School Management and the Rôle of the Parents" in the whole of the Strathclyde regional council area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's proposal is that there should be one board for each primary and secondary school, but that schools with 100 pupils or less might be grouped under single boards. Any grouping arrangements would be for local decision.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Strathclyde regional council representatives would be required in order to take part in the meetings of the school boards proposed by his consultative paper "School Management and the Rôle of Parents".

  Mr. Michael Forysyth
  We have proposed that the education authority should appoint one representative to each school board. It would be for the education authority itself to decide who should be its representatives.

  Sexual Assault
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what responses he has received to his report on prosecuting sexual assault; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) on 26 November 1987 at column 144.

  Coniferious Trees
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for encouraging the planting of coniferous trees.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The planting of coniferious trees is encouraged under the Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme.

  Extradition (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. William Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests for the extradition of persons from Scotland to the Republic of Ireland have been received in each of the last five years, and how many of these requests have been (a) granted and (b) refused.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. It is likely however that requests for the extradition of persons resident in Scotland from the Republic of Ireland have averaged two or three per annum and that all such requests have been granted.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will construct for Scotland a table in the same form as figure J7 in Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government," showing numbers of adults living in each of the households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge;

  (2) if he will reproduce for Scotland figure J7 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government," showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by (a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  The estimated number of households in Scotland gaining and losing from the community charge is given below. The figures are based on 1985–86 data and are derived from a sample survey of approximately 1,800 Scottish households. The actual level of community charge in each area will depend on the spending of the local authority and decisions on grant distribution which are still to be taken. A further disaggregation of these figures by household type, local authority and parliamentary constituency cannot be given because of the size of the sample.

  Households in Scotland gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge 1985–86

  Approximate numbers of gainers and losers

  Pounds per week

  Thousands of households

  Losers

  10+

  4

  5–10

  80

  2–5

  238

  1–2

  223

  0–1

  434

  Total losers

  979

  Gainers

  0–1

  449

  1–2

  143

  2–5

  238

  5–10

  84

  10+

  19

  Total gainers

  934

  Percentage of Net Income

  Losers

  10+

  —

  5–10

  4

  2–5

  137

  1–2

  260

  0–1

  578

  549

  Pounds per week

  Thousands of households

  Total losers

  979

  Gainers

  0–1

  494

  1–2

  228

  2–5

  182

  5–10

  26

  10+

  4

  Total gainers

  934

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Home-Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for the support of sheep production in Scotland in future.

  Liquid Market

  Butter

  Cheese

  Condensed Milk and Chocolate Crumb

  Whole Milk Powder

  Cream

  Other Products

  Total

  1980–81

  634

  119

  264

  178

  1

  78

  2

  1,276

  1981–82

  623

  183

  289

  155

  2

  77

  1

  1,330

  1982–83

  609

  274

  292

  173

  2

  82

  3

  1,435

  1983–84

  605

  299

  298

  133

  1

  85

  1

  1,422

  1984–85

  636

  195

  280

  150

  —

  41

  3

  1,305

  1985–86

  646

  134

  313

  148

  —

  31

  3

  1,275

  1986–87

  641

  137

  337

  164

  —

  25

  2

  1,306

  Detailed information in the form requested on the amounts of Scottish milk products exported and sold into intervention is not held centrally. However, exports account for only a very small proportion of Scottish production, as do sales into intervention.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Home-Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the bus routes in Scotland where services have been reduced or withdrawn since the introduction of deregulation in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  3,404 changes in services were registered in Scotland during the period October 1986 to October 1987. 499 of those were new services, 416 were withdrawals while 2,489 were amendments to existing services. In view of the number of changes this question cannot be answered except at disproportionate cost.

  Cheese Making
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in cheese making and in other creameries in Scotland in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. However, the employment census of manufacturing industries conducted in 1981 and 1984 discloses that 3,762 and 3,103 persons respectively were employed in the preparation of milk and milk products in Scotland.
  550
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The outcome of negotiations on the Commission's proposals for reforming the EC sheepmeat regime will have an important bearing on future support arrangements for the Scottish sheep industry. In these negotiations the Government are seeking particularly to protect the interests of traditional sheep producers and to reject any measures which might discriminate against our industry.

  Milk
  Mr. Home-Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of milk produced in Scotland, the amount sold as liquid milk in Scotland, the amount processed to make cheese and other products, the amount exported, and the amount sold into intervention in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on milk utilisation in Scotland is set out in the table below. (Figures are in million litres; years run from April to March.)

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on recent trends in the production of cheese in Scotland and in demand for Scottish produced cheese.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In recent years the demand for Scottish cheese has been growing. Production of mature cheddar reached 28,346 tonnes in 1986, but is likely to fall back to around 21,000 tonnes this year. Production of other, higher value cheeses (such as feta and mozzarella) is continuing to grow. This year the availability of milk for cheddar manufacture has been limited by quota reductions, by an exceptionally high spring production peak involving lower production later in the year, and by growth in the output of higher value milk products. My noble Friend the Minister of State is currently pursuing with the cheddar makers ways in which greater supplies of milk might be secured for their markets.

  Crime
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing trends in the incidence of each category of crime in each police force area and the percentage of those crimes which have been cleared up by the police in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics of crimes and offences recorded and cleared up in each police force area are published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Roadlands Hospital, Haddington
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the accident and emergency service at Roadlands hospital, Haddington, East Lothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that a local review is being undertaken of the east unit of Lothian health board which includes the hospital. In the first instance this is a matter for the board.

  Dornoch Firth (Railway Bridge)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions in relation to the British Railways Order 1986 tabled in November 1985, to provide for the construction of a railway bridge across the Dornoch firth.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  British Rail announced on 23 July 1987 its decision to withdraw its request to Parliament for the authority to bridge the Dornoch firth with a new railway line linking Tain and Golspie.

  Oban-Colonsay Ferry Service
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in respect of the proposed new timetable, due to be introduced by Caledonian MacBrayne in 1989, on the Oban-Colonsay service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have received representations from the local community council and a number of other island interests about the proposed timetable for Colonsay from 1989 onwards. I understand that the proposed timing of one specific sailing is a matter of concern. It will be for the management of Caledonian MacRayne to reach a view on the timing of their sailing in the light of their commercial judgment and operational requirements, following their usual consultations with local community interests.

  Woodilee Hospital, Glasgow
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals have been put to him by Greater Glasgow health board, concerning the future of Woodilee hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Greater Glasgow health board is currently reviewing its strategy for mental illness services across the whole of its area. The long-term future of Woodilee hospital will be dependent on the outcome of that review. My Department has had discussions with the board about the interim measures it has taken so far at Woodilee following the evacuation of the hospital's main block earlier this year, and is currently considering proposals for further measures.

  Random Breath Tests
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce random breath testing for drivers in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to amend the legislation on breath testing.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Deaf People (Telephones)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the possible closure of the London telephone exchange for deaf people; what plans he has to assist its continuance as a facility for deaf people; what discussions he has had with British Telecom about this exchange and the possible provision of similar facilities in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 21 October. We have received representations on this matter from 151 hon. Members and 49 other people. We have also received a petition containing 247 names of people living mainly in the Spalding area.

  Social Workers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the number of social workers qualified to work with the deaf and arrangements for training them; what discussions has he had with the relevant professional bodies: and what advice his Department is giving in this area.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on the number of social workers qualified to work with deaf people is not collected centrally. We are, however, aware of the difficulties in this area, and officials from the Department have held meetings with the professional and other bodies concerned. Training of social workers is primarily the responsibility of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work which has recently agreed in principle proposals to develop a distance learning package in this specialism.

  Hospitals (Infection)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the estimated cost to date to each health region in dealing with outbreaks of the infection of multi-resistant staphylococcus aureus; and whether Her Majesty's Government will provide additional finance to health authorities toward this cost.

  Mrs. Currie
  Estimates are not available. It is for health authorities to decide how to meet, from within the funds available to them, the cost of infection control in hospitals from whatever source, and the care and treatment of those infected.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current period of waiting for orthopaedic patients (i) nationally and (ii) in the North East Thames region; and what proposals he has to provide additional funds to reduce this waiting time.

  Mr. Newton
  The table shows the latest available information for cases admitted from the waiting list:
  553

  Estimated median interval in weeks between the date an in-patient was placed on the waiting list and the date of admission, for patients discharged from Traumatic and Orthopaedic departments during 1985

  Region of treatment

  Weeks

  North East Thames RHA

  13

  England

  12

  The first year's allocation of £25 million from the waiting list fund will enable health authorities to treat over 100,000 additional waiting list cases in 1987–88. These will include several thousand joint replacements and other orthopaedic procedures. The North-East Thames regional health authority is spending £762,500 of its £2·07 million allocations on projects in the trauma and orthopaedic specialty. As a result, its districts plan to treat 1,650 extra cases from orthopaedic waiting lists in 1987–88. By 30 September 1987, 636 of these had already been treated.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of people who received severe weather payments in each month of the winter of 1986–87 for which figures are available; and what proportion of each total were pensioners.

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

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total expenditure on cold weather payments for each of the last five winters for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  Nil

  1985

  1·7

  1986

  11·6

  1987

  10·2

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline his policy for targeting special winter fuel payments to elderly people and disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  Help with heating costs is available each week to supplementary benefit claimants through the weekly scale rates and heating additions. Extra help through the exceptionally cold weather provision has been targeted on groups most at risk from the cold: the elderly, the very young and the sick and disabled.

  Ativan
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to limit the availability of the addictive drug Ativan.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 27 October at column 256.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each year since 1982–83 the health authorities which have received audit reports critical of their private patient arrangements.
  554
  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is as follows. The 1986–87 audit is still in progress.

  1982–83

  Cambridge

  Calderdale

  Leicestershire

  Central Nottinghamshire

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  West Lambeth

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Bexley

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1983–84

  Darlington

  South Tees

  Bradford

  Nottingham

  Sheffield

  West Suffolk

  Islington

  North East Essex

  Waltham Forest

  Camberwell

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Mid Downs

  Merton and Sutton

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Oxfordshire

  Torbay

  Coventry

  North Birmingham

  North Staffordshire

  Shropshire

  The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases

  1984–85

  Newcastle

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  North West Hertfordshire

  North Bedfordshire

  Bath

  Northampton

  East Berkshire

  Milton Keynes

  Aylesbury Vale

  Southmead

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Central Birmingham

  Mid Staffordshire

  Rugby

  Coventry

  South Manchester

  1985–86

  North Hertfordshire

  Riverside

  Bloomsbury

  City and Hackney

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  Drugs
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will require all pharmaceutical companies which make payments for adverse reactions from drugs supplied by the National Health Service to inform him of the level and total of payments made, so that his advisers can assess the incidence and severity of the various side effects that have occurred;

  (2) if he will ensure that the Committee on Safety of Medicines routinely obtain the scientific evidence that is presented in United States courts when there is a compensation claim following adverse reactions to a drug that also has a British product licence and is, or has been, prescribed for British citizens;
  555
  (3) if he will ensure that the Committee on Safety of Medicines routinely obtains any evidence about a pharmaceutical company's integrity that is presented in United States courts when there is a compensation claim following adverse reactions to a drug that also has a British product licence and is or has been prescribed for British citizens;

  (4) if, unless there are exceptional circumstances, he will make it a condition of the purchase by the National Health Service of a pharmaceutical company's products that in the event of a company making payments because of adverse reactions from one of its drugs, the company must inform his Department of the nature, scope and cost of the payment scheme;

  (5) if, unless there are exceptional circumstances, he will make it a condition of the purchase by the National Health Service of a pharmaceutical company's products that all known medical data or information relating to the company's integrity regarding research findings or adverse reactions reporting should immediately and routinely be reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Newton
  Companies are already required to provide the licensing authority with any evidence that is relevant to their application for a product licence at the time it is submitted. Under the terms of their product licence, they must also report adverse drug reactions and any other evidence which might cast doubt on the validity of the data submitted with their application immediately these are known to them. The licensing authority is concerned with the safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products. Any question of compensation for adverse drug reactions is a matter for the claimant, the company and the courts. I see no reason to change the current arrangements relating to the purchase of medicinal products by the National Health Service.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will request the Committee on Safety of Medicines to require companies when they warn of uncommon side effects to (a) draw attention to particularly vulnerable groups of people, (b) if the side effects are considered transient, to provide a time scale and (c) give specific descriptions of such side effects rather than use general terms.

  Mr. Newton
  The data sheets which accompany all medicinal products promoted to doctors must be consistent with the relevant prooduct licences, contain an accurate description of known side effects and, where appropriate, provide warnings about use by particular categories of patient. Appropriate warnings must also appear on produce labels or leaflets accompanying licensed medicinal products. For adverse reactions which are considered transient, a time scale is given where appropriate. I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him on 9 July 1987 at columns 261–62.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, whenever a drug is withdrawn by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, he will publish the data which led to its withdrawal.

  Mr. Newton
  Medicinal products are withdrawn either as a result of voluntary action by pharmaceutical companies or the revocation of the product licence by the licensing authorities. In either case, action may be preceded or followed by one or more publications by the 556
  Committee on Safety of Medicines, such as "Dear Doctor" letters or "Current Problems", in which the medical profession is informed of data on adverse reactions to the drug. It is the general policy of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, wherever possible, to provide doctors with reasons when medicinal products are withdrawn from the market or are subject to major limitations in their use, providing that to do so would not breach the commercial confidentiality requirements of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if a product licence is requested for a drug primarily intended for long term use by elderly people; and what are the current criteria laid down by the Committee on Safety of Medicines for the drug trials with respect to (a) the length of the trials and (b) the number and proportion of elderly people involved.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him on 9 July 1987 at column 261.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how often his Department's statisticians check the validity of significance tests made in drug trials.

  Mr. Newton
  All data provided in support of any product licence application are rigorously assessed by professional DHSS staff and, when appropriate, by the expert members on the Committee on Safety of Medicines or other appropriate expert committee. Careful consideration of statistical techniques is an important part of this assessment.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what checks are made by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the data provided by a company applying for a product licence; whether visits are made to the company's premises; whether there is consultation with the United States Food and Drug Administration; and to what extent the reputation of the company is relevant to the acceptance of its data;

  (2) if he will appoint Committee on Safety of Medicines investigators with a similar role to the United States Food and Drug investigators to check the validity of pharmaceutical companies research findings and the integrity of their adverse reaction reports;

  (3) if he will make it his policy that whenever there is firm evidence that a pharmaceutical company has violated drug regulations either in the United Kingdom or the United States of America, and in particular if it has paid a fine to the United States Food and Drug Administration for doing so, any further applications from such a company will only be accepted after a visit to the research premises and a personal investigation of the relevant records, with the additional cost to be borne by the company.

  Mr. Newton
  In assessing an application for a product licence, and in monitoring the safety of a medicinal product after marketing, the licensing authority takes into account all relevant factors, including any information provided by other regulatory authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration. We have no plans to appoint investigators to check companies' research or their reporting of adverse drug reactions, but if there were any reason to doubt the accuracy of the data supporting a particular licence application, the matter
  557
  would be rigorously pursued with the company until the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the licensing authority.

  Photosensitivity
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what information is available on the incidence and severity of photosensitivity; whether the number of sufferers is thought to be increasing or declining; and to what extent the causes are known;

  (2) how common is acute long-term photosensitivity; how many and which of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are known to have it as a side effect; and which they are.

  Mr. Newton
  No specific information is held by the Department on the incidence and severity of photosensitivity or on the number of sufferers. The causes of photosensitivity are well documented as, for example, in "Cutaneous Photobiology" by W. Frain-Bell (Oxford University Press 1985) which can be obtained through the Library of the House. Photosensitivity, in varying degrees and incidence, is acknowledged as a possible side-effect of most of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs currently available in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will request the Committee on Safety of Medicines to require companies applying for product licences to investigate photo-toxicity in the toxicity studies; and if he will ensure that all such tests are carried out in the summer months and include vulnerable fair-skinned patients.

  Mr. Newton
  Although an investigation of phototoxicity is not a general requirement on companies seeking a product licence for a medicinal product, the licensing authority, as advised by the Committee on Safety of Medicines, pays close attention to safety, quality and efficacy whenever an application is considered. If there is doubt about any aspect of safety, including phototoxicity, the company must provide whatever evidence may be needed to reassure the committee and the licensing authority before a licence can be granted.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate discussions with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries in order to request the industry to finance research into intractable drug induced disorders, with priority being given to photosensitivity.

  Percentage bed occupancy for the Obstetrics specialty. National Health Service hospitals

  1981–1986

  Regional Health Authority

  11981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  68·3

  65·2

  62·9

  62·4

  65·2

  63·4

  Yorkshire

  70·3

  68·9

  68·6

  67·1

  68·5

  67·8

  Trent

  70·0

  65·1

  64·3

  64·2

  65·0

  65·4

  East Anglian

  63·8

  61·6

  59·4

  60·0

  61·5

  64·7

  N. W. Thames

  69·0

  64·6

  64·0

  63·1

  61·8

  67·0

  N. E. Thames

  73·4

  69·2

  70·0

  69·0

  69·6

  69·4

  S. E. Thames

  73·7

  70·9

  69·7

  68·1

  71·0

  70·6

  S. W. Thames

  68·8

  65·6

  64·5

  67·2

  66·3

  68·0

  Wessex

  70·6

  66·6

  65·9

  64·2

  66·1

  67·1

  Oxford

  69·0

  66·9

  64·2

  66·7

  68·4

  69·1

  South Western

  72·6

  70·7

  70·6

  69·1

  71·3

  66·8

  West Midlands

  73·2

  72·7

  70·9

  70·1

  71·9

  73· 5

  558
  Mr. Newton
  I have no reason to question the effectiveness of existing arrangements under which pharmaceutical companies already fund a considerable amount of research in academic departments, for a variety of purposes. I will, however, draw the right hon. Member's suggestion to the association's attention.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the research projects supported by his Department that are currently investigating drug-induced photosensitivity.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department is not currently supporting any research into drug-induced photosensitivity.

  The main Government agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the criteria for loans from the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Draft directions and guidance for the award of loans were included in the draft "Social Fund Manual" which was issued to interested parties for comment on 25 March 1987. Careful consideration was given to the views expressed and revised directions and guidance were included in the version of the manual placed in the Library on 9 October, which will be published later this autumn.

  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what allocation of money is to be made to the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The national budget for the discretionary part of the social fund in 1988–89, its first year of operation, will be £203 million. £60 million will be allocated for community care grants, £141 million for loans, and £2 million will be held back as a central contingency reserve.

  Obstetric Beds
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage occupancy for obstetric beds for each regional health authority for each of the last six years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is given in the table.
  559

  Regional Health Authority

  11981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Mersey

  68·6

  65·3

  64·5

  67·4

  68·7

  66·3

  North Western

  70·8

  69·5

  68·9

  68·1

  70·6

  67·9

  SHAs

  75·0

  67·9

  68·0

  69·9

  66·8

  70·1

  England

  70·6

  67·8

  66·8

  66·6

  67·9

  67·9

  1 Figures for the Thames regions and Special Health Authorities are not comparable because of the effects of National Health Service restructuring in 1982.

  Births
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of (a) low and (b) very low birth weight babies for each district health authority for each of the last six years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The recent OPCS Monitor series DH3 87/2, "Infant and Perinatal Mortality 1985: DHAs" gives the percentage of total births weighing less than 2,500 grams for each district health authority for 1985. A copy is in the Library.

  Hospital Staffing
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what changes in junior hospital staffing within the National Health Service are envisaged by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee arising from the proposals in the document "Achieving a Balance";

  (2) what changes he proposes in junior hospital staffing in the National Health Service as a result of the proposals in the document "Achieving a Balance".

  Mr. Newton
  The aims of "Achieving a Balance" are to improve patient care by removing the present imbalance in the hospital medical career structure. The package includes various measures to boost the number of consultants and to relate more closely the number of doctors in training grades to expected consultant opportunities. In determining the number of training grade posts needed, the Department will seek advice from the joint planning advisory committee which is already fulfilling this role for senior registrar posts. In most specialties there is likely to be a need to reduce the number of United Kingdom graduates now in the training grades, but their contribution to patient services will be replaced in other ways, for instance by additional consultant posts.

  Medical Manpower
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list those whom he has consulted on the proposals in the document "Achieving a Balance" in medical manpower.

  Mr. Newton
  The document was issued for consultation to all regional, district and special health authorities; royal colleges and faculties; family practitioner committees; and community health councils. It was also issued to the main national organisations in the fields of health and medical education, including the British Medical Association, General Medical Council, Medical Research Council, Association of Medical Research Charities, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, Council for Postgraduate Medical Education, University Grants Committee, and a number 560
  of associations representing individual medical specialties. In addition, the full text of the consultative document was published in the British Medical Journal.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations his Department has received from social workers specialising in work with kidney patients about changes in social security regulations affecting people on dialysis; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Correspondence was received last year from the renal special interest group of the British Association of Social Workers, and subsequently from the right hon. Member and other hon. Members on behalf of the association and others, about the replacement of the supplementary benefit scheme by the new income support scheme and its effect on kidney patients.

  The rates of income support which my right hon. Friend announced on 27 October provide a substantial overall increase for disabled people. Furthermore, those claimants whose income support entitlement is less than their supplementary benefit entitlement at the point of change will have their existing benefit levels maintained. As the right hon. Member is aware, a major survey into the numbers, needs and circumstances of disabled people has been undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the first results of this survey will be published next year. The effect of the premium arrangements on the needs of kidney patients will be looked at in the light of these results.

  Nurses
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from organisations representing nurses on the proposals for a community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of recipients of invalid care allowance at 16 October.

  Mr. Scott
  At 19 October, the closest date to 16 October for which information is available, there were 88,000 recipients of invalid care allowance.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost to public funds of increasing the income disregard in respect of invalid care allowance to (a) 15 per week and (b) 17 per week.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information on which to base an estimate could be extracted only at disproportionate cost.
  561
  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to shorten the delay in processing claims for invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  Additional resources have recently been devoted to processing claims and the average time taken to clear them is continuing to fall.

  Community Charge Rebate Scheme
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to make a statement on the operation of a community charge rebate scheme.

  Mr. Portillo
  An announcement will be made in due course. Discussions with the local authority associations on the operation of the community charge rebate scheme are already under way, in the light of which detailed proposals will be put to them as part of the statutory consultation procedure.

  Rate Rebates
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the maximum income that would enable the following categories to qualify for rate rebates now: (a) a single person under 24 years; (b) a single person 25 years and over; (c) a married couple with no children; (d) a married couple with two dependent chidren; (e) a pensioner couple; and (f) a single pensioner: and what changes he proposes to make to these limits in the context of community charge rebates.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no specified maximum income level at which people cease to qualify for a rate rebate, and in any individual case this will depend partly on the size of the original rates bill. From 1988, the starting point for. calculating rate rebates in the majority of cases will be the income support "applicable amounts", which will determine the relative level of rebate for the categories specified at a given level of income and a given domestic rates bill. How far above his applicable amount a person's rebate runs out, for a given rates bill, will be determined by the rate "taper". We expect similar arrangements to apply to community charge rebates but the relevant applicable amounts and taper will not be set until nearer the time.

  Mersey Region (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what the waiting lists in the Mersey region were in the each of the years from 1979 to the present.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested in given in the table.

  Number of cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 March, NHS Hospitals, Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Year

  Number

  1979

  41,103

  1980

  36,547

  1981

  33,082

  1982

  33,206

  1983

  36,187

  1984

  32,271

  1985

  30,767

  1986

  30,779

  1987

  29,147

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's consultation with the local authority associations and the voluntary sector on further implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 27 October at column 254.

  Pregnancy Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will give a breakdown of the fees of which he is aware which are charged by the pregnancy advice bureaux and abortion clinics.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on fees charged by individual bureaux and clinics is supplied to the Department on an "in confidence" basis. My hon. Friend may wish to approach these organisations direct for this information.

  Abortion
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, what is the percentage of women who are referred for abortions by each abortion agency of which his Department's investigative officers are aware.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, al. column 175, whether the figure of 74 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks being performed upon single women includes married women who are separated from their husbands.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will supply a list of the names and addresses of the proprietors of those abortion agencies and clinics which are linked financially to the knowledge of his Department;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of October, at column 175, if he will list the eight abortion agencies which have financial links with abortion clinics, stating in each case the number of places where counselling is undertaken and the number of clinics involved;

  (3) pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will describe the scale and precise nature of the financial links between the eight abortion agencies and clinics in such a manner so as not to identify the eight agencies concerned.

  Mr. Newton
  It is not possible to publish details of the links between abortion counselling agencies and approved nursing homes without releasing details which are provided to the Department in confidence. My hon. Friend may wish to approach abortion counselling agencies direct for this information.
  563
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, when he expects the publication of the paper currently being prepared by the Manchester research unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners on post-abortion stress disorder.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the paper is likely to be published early next year.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, whether he has any information concerning the revenue generated by the 99·7 per cent of abortions upon foreign women which were performed in the private clinics in 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  No.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, whether he has any plans to review his Department's current practice of not recording details of the after-care provided to non-resident patients who have abortions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, whether he has any plans to introduce a requirement for an information sheet and discharge letter in their native language to be provided to all non-resident women upon whom abortions are performed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  We are satisfied that this is already done as good medical practice, and have no plans to make it a statutory requirement.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list all those agencies which are currently licensed by his Department to counsel or refer women for abortions stating in each case the total number of women whom they dealt with in the latest year for which figures are available and state the number of those women who were referred for abortions.

  Mr. Newton
  Pregnancy advisory bureaux currently registered with the Department are listed as follows. Information on the numbers of women dealt with is not available centrally.

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Basingstoke Branch

  Church Grange Health Centre

  Bramleys Drive

  Basingstoke RG21 1QN

  Birmingham Pregnancy Consultation Service

  14–16 Temple Street

  Birmingham B2 5BG

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Birmingham Branch

  Guildhall Buildings

  Navigation Street

  Birmingham B2 4BT

  Blackpool Pregnancy Testing and Counselling Centre Stanley Buildings

  3 Caunce Street

  Blackpool

  564

  Pregnancy Advisory Service—Blackpool

  93 Abingdon Street

  Blackpool FY1 1PP

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Bournemouth (Pelhams) Branch

  Pelhams Clinic

  Millhams Road

  Bournemouth

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Bournemouth (Dean Park) Branch

  23 Ophir Road

  Bournemouth

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Brighton Branch

  Wistons Site

  Chatsworth Road

  Brighton

  Sussex BN1 5PA

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Chester Branch

  98A Foregate Street

  Chester CHI 1HB

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Coventry Branch

  Coundon Welfare Clinic

  Barker Butts Lane

  Coventry

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Doncaster Branch

  The Bungalow

  1a Avenue Road

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Rosslyn

  17 Rosslyn Road

  East Twickenham

  Middlesex TW 1 2AR

  Options

  Population Control Clinic

  45 Fitzwilliam Street

  Huddersfield HD1 5LG

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Hull)

  139 Beverley Road

  Hull

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Hull Branch

  32 Beverley Road

  Hull

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Leeds Branch

  8 The Headrow

  Leeds

  Yorkshire

  565

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Leeds)

  4 Albion Street

  Leeds 1

  Marie Stopes Centre

  10 Queens Square

  Leeds 2

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Liverpool Branch

  20–22 Rodney Street

  Liverpool L1 2TQ

  Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Fourth Floor

  Hepworth Chambers

  Church Street

  Liverpool L1 3BG

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  London Branch

  7 Belgrave Road

  London SW1

  Birth Control and Pregnancy Counselling Ltd

  10 Coptic Street

  London WC1

  The Gerrard Street Clinic

  Medical Centre

  36 Gerrard Street

  London W1V 7LP

  London Youth Advisory Centre

  26 Prince of Wales Road

  London NW5

  Marie Stopes

  North London Pregnancy Advisory Bureau

  65 Shoot-Up Hill

  London NW2

  Metropolitan Pregnancy Control Centre

  40 Mortimer Street

  London W1

  Pregnancy Advisory Service

  11/13 Charlotte Street

  London W1

  Preterm

  40 Mortimer Street

  London WIN 7RB

  Pregnancy and Gynaecological Advisory Service

  26 Fouberts Place

  London W1N 1HG

  The Well Woman Centre

  Marie Slopes House

  108 Whitfield Street

  London W1

  The Well Woman Centre

  Marie Stopes Annexe

  114 Whitfield Street

  London W1

  566

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Luton Branch

  3A Upper George Street

  Luton LU1 2QY

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Manchester Branch

  Suite F Ground Floor

  Fourways House

  57 Hilton Street

  Manchester M1 2EJ

  Marie Stopes Pregnancy Advisory Bureau

  1 Police Street

  Manchester M1 7LQ

  Pregnancy Advisory Service—Manchester

  5th Floor

  Newton Buildings

  Newton Street

  Manchester M1 2EJ

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre (Manchester)

  Fifth Floor

  2 St John Street

  Manchester 3

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Milton Keynes Branch

  First Floor

  Eaglestone Health Centre

  Standing Way

  Milton Keynes MK6 5AZ

  East Midlands Pregnancy Advisory Service

  The Grange

  480A Mansfield Road

  Sherwood

  Nottingham

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Sheffield Branch

  160 Charles Street

  Sheffield S1 2NE

  408 Young People's Consultation Centre Ltd

  408 Ecclesall Road

  Sheffield S11 8PJ

  Sheffield Pregnancy and Counselling Service

  276 Glossop Road

  Sheffield S10 2HS

  Pregnancy Advisory Service

  1A George Street

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  Staffordshire ST5 1JX

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Swindon Branch

  Priory Road Health Clinic

  Priory Road

  Swindon SN3 2EZ

  567

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Leamington Spa Branch

  Holly Walk Welfare Clinic

  Holly Walk

  Leamington Spa

  Warwickshire

  Sister Rose Pregnancy Advisory Centre

  (Wolverhampton)

  Second Floor

  19–21 Queen Street

  Wolverhampton

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, if he will list the abortion agencies and clinics which are run by the 32 individuals of whom his Department is aware who are both directors or trustees of a company or charity providing abortion counselling and also of a clinic providing abortions; and if he will list the names of those individuals.

  Mr. Newton
  This information, like any commercial information, was supplied to the Department on an "in confidence" basis and is therefore not for publication.

  Mr Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will list the names and addresses of each abortion agency or clinic from which a licence has been withdrawn in the last 20 years following the discovery of breaches of the requirement to notify changes in financial arrangements.

  Mr. Newton
  No approved place has had its approval withdrawn for the reasons stated.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, whether he has any plans to make it a requirement for doctors working on a salaried basis at an abortion agency not also to perform abortions on these patients in a nursing home or clinic.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winteron
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services. pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will explain how patient confidentiality would be breached by disclosing the numbers of abortions performed in each year after 18 weeks gestation in emergency to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Newton
  Where small numbers are involved, it is possible that disclosure of information in detail would, when compared with figures already published, reveal sensitive information about individuals to persons with other knowledge of them. It is therefore policy to disclose information only in a form which minimises this risk. This policy was followed by giving grouped data in the reply of 26 October.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, why reliable information concerning the number of abortions performed in the case of rape has not been available for the past 20 years; and if he will give the details of the changes which are now being introduced to remedy this.
  568
  Mr. Newton
  The Abortion Act 1967 does not require a certifying doctor to specifically mention cases of rape on the notification form, but in some cases the information is volunteered. Furthermore, until 1979 only medical conditions directly affecting the foetus were coded and analysed. The information obtained of cases of rape was, therefore, necessarily incomplete.

  Between 1979 and 1986 the medical condition of the woman was also coded, but mentions of rape were not always separately identified. From 1987 onwards all mentions of rape will be separately coded and analysed.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, at column 175, if he will give a breakdown of the average cost of £170 of performing an abortion on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  These detailed costs are not centrally identified.

  Census
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is planning to hold a census in Great Britain in 1991.

  Mr. Moore
  Yes. My predecessor announced on 14 July 1983(Official Report Vol. 45, col. 452) that planning would proceed on the basis that the next census would be in 1991. The need for information on the population and alternative ways to gather it were subsequently examined, and it has been concluded that a census should be held in England, Wales and Scotland in 1991. The Registrars General have arranged for there to be consultations about the census with a wide range of users of census statistics, and submissions to them from any source are welcome. Proposals for the content of the census will he published as a White Paper next year.

  Brain Death
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are estimated to die from brain death in hospital annually; and of these how many could be regarded as potential organ donors.

  Mrs. Currie
  No recent estimates of the nationwide incidence of brain stem death have been made. However, a study published in 1981 estimated that about 4,000 cases of brain stem death occurred annually in Great Britain.

  The proportion of such patients who could be regarded as potential organ donors is not known.

  Steroids
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what compensation has been made available for people who have suffered serious side effects from taking steroids, particularly when these drugs were first marketed.

  Mr. Newton
  Questions of compensation for individuals are matters to be pursued with the companies concerned and where necessary through the courts. Information about individual compensation settlements is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice has been issued to

  569
  regional health authorities about safe dosages of steroids; and what warnings about side effects are required to be given by doctors to patients who have been prescribed these drugs.

  Mr. Newton
  No special advice about safe dosages of steroids has been issued to regional health authorities. The British National Formulary, which is sent to all doctors, contains advice on safe dosages and on appropriate and inappropriate uses of steroids. Guidance on use and details of known side-effects are also contained in the data sheets which are supplied to all doctors for medicinal products, such as steroids, which are available only on prescription. It is for doctors to decide in each case what warnings about side-effects should be given to patients.

  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act to be implemented in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  Directions to health authorities on non-clinical complaints are being prepared and should be issued by the end of the year.

  Discussions on the inclusion of clinical complaints procedures within these directions are continuing with the joint consultants committee.

  Human Organs (Transplantation)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions have been sent to regional health authorities about introducing the required request procedure to increase the supply of human organs for transplant.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have received advice from the medical royal colleges. and are currently considering what action we should ask health authorities to take.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide figures for each district health authority in London of the numbers currently waiting for hospital treatment.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest information available centrally is included in a bound volume of the hospital waiting lists for health authorities in England at 31 March 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library. For current information the hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the four Thames regional health authorities.

  Means-Tested Benefits
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what measures he now proposes to introduce to reduce the number of people dependent on means-tested benefits;

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to reduce the number of people dependent on means-tested benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  From next September, we will be removing the general eligibility of unemployed young people aged 16 and 17 for income support, guaranteeing a place on the youth training scheme for those who are not in full-time education and do not go into a job. Futhermore the introduction of the reformed structure of income-related benefits will help ensure better targeting of available resources on those facing the greatest needs. Amongst those in least need and entitled to smaller amounts, around 1 million fewer are expected to receive housing benefit. Family credit will extend improved help to over twice as many low income working families with children compared with family income supplement.

  Deaf People (Telephones)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what priority for action has been given to funding of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf for funding a telephone exchange for deaf people, following his meeting with myself and representatives of the institute on 5 August; what subsequent meetings have been held, and when he expects to arrive at his decision.

  Mr. Scott
  We have been actively pursuing the question of the exchange's future funding. I understand that there was a meeting between the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and British Telecom last month. Officials from the Department will be meeting representatives of British Telecom and the other Government Departments concerned on 3 November. I shall make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many haemophiliacs have been infected by AIDS during the past 12 months following blood transfusions at National Health Service hospitals; and if compensation will be paid.

  Mr. Newton
  No haemophiliac patients are known to have been infected with the AIDS virus following the use of blood transfusions or blood products in the past 12 months.

  AIDS
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from organisations or individuals on the plight of those infected with the AIDS virus as a result of treatment under the NHS, and what plans he has to respond to requests for assistance with the cost of treatment, including travel expenses.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received approximately 200 written representations from individuals and organisations on this issue. All the facilities of the NHS are available to those who have been infected with HIV. Help

  Year

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Greenock

  Port Glasgow

  (April to April)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  10,019,290

  6,626,140

  103,447

  90,184

  1980–81

  14,123,563

  9,847,098

  289,568

  199,653

  1981–82

  12,375,533

  7,906,488

  215,181

  108,610

  1982–83

  22,670,751

  15,454,679

  413,061

  272,372

  1983–84

  37,067,373

  24,936,115

  589,042

  366,898

  1984–85

  54,250,887

  36,927,066

  852,311

  531,208

  1985–86

  71,053,317

  48,170,412

  1,106,074

  766,240

  1986–87

  71,373,760

  50,070,021

  1,595,050

  901,497

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Servants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further proposals he has for merit awards to civil servants.

  Mr. Brooke
  Performance-related pay arrangements for grades 2 and 3 and an interim scheme for grades 4 to 7 are now in place. The new flexible pay system for scientific, professional and technical grades includes performance-related pay provisions which come into effect on 1 April 1988.

  It remains our intention to extend performance pay in the Civil Service and we shall be bringing forward further proposals for the inclusion of other groups of staff.

  Civil Servants (Departmental Regional Offices)
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the change in the proportion of civil servants working in departmental regional offices since 1980.

  Mr. Major
  The proportion of all non-industrial home civil servants working in Birmingham has risen from 1·6 per cent. in January 1980 to 1·7 per cent. in January 1987.

  VAT (Spectacles)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet received the decision of the European Court of Justice on the issue of the levying of value added tax on spectacles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The judgment of the European Court has not yet been received; it is expected before Christmas.
  572
  with fares to hospital is available for those who are eligible under the provisions of the National Health Service (Expenses in Attending Hospital) Regulations, 1950.

  Single Payments (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total amount of single payments paid to claimants in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland in the financial years 1979–80 to 1986–87.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 26 October]: The amount of single payments paid to claimants in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland in the financial years 1979–80 to 1986–87 is shown in the table. The figures include both full and partial awards.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate, for each of the last three financial years and in estimate form for the current financial year, the reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement which has accrued from the removal of the capital borrowing requirements of privatised industries into the private sector; and if he will break this down on an enterprise by enterprise basis.

  Mr. Major
  The nationalised industries' contribution to the public sector borrowing requirement is defined as the sum of their external financing requirements. The Government cannot provide estimates, which would be purely hypothetical, of what the financing requirements of privatised companies might have been had they been still in the public sector. Details of the industries' external finance up to the point of privatisation are published in the public expenditure White Paper for the following year; provisional outturns are first published in the cash limits provisional outturn White Paper.

  Civil Servants (Computer Training)
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the survey conducted by the CCTA on the training of civil servants in the use of computer systems; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library when it is published.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am not aware of a specific survey on this subject, but, if my hon. Friend cares to write to me with further details, I will seek to assist him.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mrs. Gorman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take to rectify the anomaly

  573
  whereby two or more people can each obtain tax relief on the same property while married couples are limited to a single amount of relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 29 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to propose to his fellow Ministers in the European Community that the Community encourages the conversion of loans to the poor countries of sub-Saharan Africa to grants: and if he will propose to them other steps to relieve the burden of that part of the world.

  Mr. Lilley
  Most of our European Community partners have already converted their old aid loans to grants for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries in sub-Saharan Africa as the United Kingdom has done. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to press for further support from all Paris Club creditors for this proposal and also for his proposal to reduce the interest rate charged on rescheduled officially guaranteed debt. The Paris Club has already implemented the third part of my right hon. Friend's plan to help sub-Saharan Africa. To date, five African countries have been granted longer repayment periods when rescheduling through the Paris Club.

  Charities
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each of the last three years, with an estimate for 1987–88, (a) the number of charitable organisations which have had applications for refund of tax on renewal covenants refused by the Inland Revenue, (b) the income lost to these charities by these refusals and (c) the number of individuals who thereby find the value of their payments to the charities reduces.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  BP Share Offer
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will make a statement as to whether the Government intend to indemnify financial institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom involved in the protection of BP agent cases arising from their underwriting commitments;

  (2) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the contract terms entered into by Her Majesty's Government with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Sheerson Lehman and Salomon Brothers for the underwriting of the BP share flotation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 October 1987]: A copy of the United Kingdom underwriting agreement and the international offer agreement for the BP sale have been placed in the Library.

  Women
  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the proportion of orchestral players in orchestras receiving financial support from the Arts Council that are women.

  Mr. Luce
  The proportion varies widely between orchestras. The average is about 20 per cent.

  Ms. Walley
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met (a) the Woman's Playhouse trust, (b) the standing conference of woman theatre directors and administrators and (c) the Campaign for Real Equality in Equity to discuss the position of women in the theatre.

  Mr. Luce
  I have not met any of these organisations, but I support equality of opportunity in the arts.

  Ms. Abbott
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has to the proportion of the total number of plays produced at theatres receiving financial support from the Arts Council that were by women writers, in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally. An alternative indicator is the premieres of new plays by women authors, as a percentage of all premiers:

  Per cent.

  1982–83

  11·8

  1983–84

  11·0

  1984–85

  10·6

  1985–86

  14·0

  1986–87

  18·0

  Mrs. Golding
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many members of the board of the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Three, nine and one, respectively.

  Ms. Short
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he will take to help implement the Arts Council's equal opportunities policy statement in relation to the employment of women.

  Mr. Luce
  The council has my warm support in its policy of equal opportunities for women.

  I have taken direct action by asking all those responsible for making submissions on appointments, or nominations for appointment, to the boards of arts bodies I sponsor to ensure that the names of suitable women are included in future short lists.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he will take to help implement the recommendations of the Cork report, "Theatre is for All", that there should be equal opportunity for women in all aspects of theatre.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he will take to help implement the recommendations of the Cork report, "Theatre is for All", that a higher priority should be given to women in new writing and project schemes.

  Mr. Luce
  I agree with the objectives of these recommendations, but action on them is a matter for the bodies concerned.
  575
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many members of the boards of (a) the Arts Council, (b) the Crafts Council and (c) the Museum and Galleries Commission are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Three women are members of the Arts Council, six women are members of the Crafts Council and there is one women commissioner in the Museums and Galleries Commission.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many chief librarians of public library authorities in England and Wales are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Since it is the responsibility of local authorities to appoint staff to their public libraries, no records are kept centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many women are on the Scottish Arts Council or the Scottish Film Council.

  Mr. Luce
  Three and four, respectively.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many exhibitions by women artists have been mounted at the Hayward gallery in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  Exhibitions which included work of women artists in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Number

  1982

  2

  1983

  2

  1984

  —

  1985

  2

  1986

  4

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many women film directors received financial support from the British Film Institute in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  Between the period 1982–86 a total of 40 films were produced by the British Film Institute; women directors benefited from funding in each year, as follows:

  Number

  1982

  2

  1983

  3

  1984

  1

  1985

  2

  1986

  1

  9

  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to the number of women photographers who received financial support from the Arts Council or from regional arts associations in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of women photographers receiving financial support

  Arts Council

  Regional Arts Associations

  1982–83

  1

  2

  1983–84

  1

  —

  1984–85

  1

  —

  1985–86

  —

  2

  1986–87

  4

  3

  576
  Miss Mowlam
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many building-based theatre companies have women artistic directors or general managers.

  Mr. Luce
  Five building-based theatre companies funded by the Arts Council or by regional arts associations have women artistic directors and 10 have women administrators.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many women are on (a) the Welsh Arts Council, (b) the board of the National Museum of Wales and (c) the board of the Welsh National Opera Company.

  Mr. Luce
  Three women are members of the Welsh Arts Council, two women are on the board of the National Museum of Wales and one woman is on the board of the Welsh National Opera Company.

  Ms. Quin
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many directors of national museums are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Currently none, but Mrs. Esteve-Coll, director-designate of the Victoria and Albert museum will be taking up her post shortly.

  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many women are either directors or deputy directors of regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  There are no female directors of regional arts associations at present, but seven assistant directors, one deputy director and one head of administration are women.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the number of women writers and producers who have been financially supported by the British Film Institute in the last five years.

  Mr. Luce
  During this period 21 women have produced or co-produced films for the British Film Institute and nine women writers have received funding.

  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many technicians are women in performing arts companies receiving financial support from the Arts Council and regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has as to how many slides of work by women artists are on sale to the general public at the Tate gallery and the National gallery.

  Mr. Luce
  Twenty-one at the Tate gallery and four at the National gallery.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many heads of department at the Arts Council are women.

  Mr. Luce
  Three.

  Visits
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will list, by region, the arts bodies he has visited in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Luce
  I have visited the following arts bodies and functions:
  577
  National Arts Bodies

  The Arts Council of Great Britain

  British Council

  British Film Foundation

  British Film Institute

  Crafts Council

  English National Opera

  Hayward Gallery

  Library Association

  National Art Collection Fund

  National Film Theatre

  National Theatre

  Royal Academy

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Royal Festival Hall

  Royal Opera House

  National Museums and Galleries

  British Museum

  British Museum (Natural History)

  Imperial War Museum, London and Duxford

  National Gallery

  National Maritime Museum

  National Portrait Gallery

  Science Museum

  Tate Gallery

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  Scotland

  Blackness Public Art Project, Dundee

  Collins Gallery, Glasgow

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art, Dundee

  Dundee Repertory Theatre

  Edinburgh Festival

  Edinburgh Tapestry Company

  Mitchell Theatre

  National Gallery of Scotland

  Royal Museum of Scotland

  Royal Scottish Academy

  SALVO

  Scottish Arts Council

  Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art

  Scottish National Portrait Gallery

  Seagate Gallery and Printmakers Workshop, Dundee

  Northern arts

  Newcastle Playhouse

  Council of Regional Arts Association's Conference, Newcastle

  North west arts

  The Action Factory, Blackburn

  Buxton Festival

  Contact Theatre, Manchester

  Harris Museum, Preston

  Manchester City Art Gallery

  Manchester Evening News Theatre Awards

  Quarry Bank Mill, Styal

  Wigan Pier

  Drumcroon Centre, Wigan

  Warrington Museum

  Yorkshire arts

  City Art Gallery, Leeds

  Cooper Gallery, Barnsley

  Crucible Theatre, Sheffield

  Grand Theatre, Leeds

  Graves Gallery, Sheffield

  Jorvik Viking Museum, York

  Land Farm Garden and Gallery, Hebden Bridge

  Leadmills Complex, Sheffield

  Lyceum Theatre, Sheffield

  Opera North, Leeds

  Piece Hall Complex and Art Gallery, Halifax

  Railway Museum, York

  Rotherham Arts Centre and Library

  Ruskin Gallery, Sheffield

  Worsborough Mill, Barnsley

  Yorkshire Museum, York

  Yorkshire Sculpture Park, Wakefield

  578
  East midlands arts

  Concordia Theatre, Hinckley

  Leicestershire Museum and Art Gallery

  William Morris Fellowship, Canons Ashby

  South western arts

  Colway Theatre Trust, Beaminster

  John Makepiece Studio, Beaminster

  Portland Heritage Trust, Isle of Portland

  Walford Mill Craft Centre, Wimborne Minster

  Southern arts

  Aspex Gallery, Portsmouth

  Bracknell Arts Centre

  Connaught Theatre, Worthing

  D-Day Museum, Portsmouth

  Dance and Media Arts Centre, Swindon

  Hornpipe Community Arts Centre, Portsmouth

  Mary Rose Exhibition, Portsmouth

  Montbatten Gallery, Portsmouth

  Mount Pleasant Photography Workshop, Southampton

  Nuffield Theatre, Southampton

  Portsmouth College of Art, Design and Further Education

  Railway Museum, Swindon

  Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth

  Theatre Royal, Winchester

  Wyvern Theatre, Swindon

  South East Arts

  Little Theatre, Brighton

  Haslemere Festival of Early Music

  Southlands Arts Centre, West Yiewsley

  London

  British Film Institute's Film Archive, Berkhamsted

  Dulwich Picture Gallery

  Greater London Arts

  Guildhall School of Music and Drama

  Halle at the RFH

  London Festival Ballet

  The Mermaid Theatre

  Museum of London

  National Youth Choir at the Royal Albert Hall

  The Place Contemporary Dance Trust

  The Roundhouse

  Royal Opera House

  St. John's, Smith Square

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  South Bank Board

  Theatre Museum

  Tricycle Theatre

  Young Vic

  Eastern Arts

  Cecil Higgins Gallery, Bedford

  Fermoy Centre, King's Lynn

  King's Lynn Museum

  Museum of East Anglian Life, Norwich

  Norwich Castle Museum

  Sainsbury Centre, University of East Anglia

  St. George's Festival, Norwich

  Wingfield College, Diss

  Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts

  Hull Humberside TIE Theatre Company

  Ferens Art Gallery, Hull

  Hull Town Docks Museum

  Leisure Centre, Grimsby

  New Theatre, Hull

  New Town Docks Museum, Hull

  Spring Street Theatre, Hull

  Touring Exhibitions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he supports the objective of touring exhibitions from the great London collections to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  579
  Mr. Luce
  I do. The Government are committed to encouraging our great national museums and galleries to make the treasures in their care more widely accessible. The Government indemnity scheme has done much to encourage the lending of objects from the nationals, and between museums generally. I hope that the unit to be set up by the Museums and Galleries Commission in the course of this financial year will be similarly successful in stimulating the creation and use of touring exhibitions.

  Theatre Touring
  Mr. Key
  asked the Minister for the Arts what action is being taken to encourage theatre touring.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council is giving priority to the expansion and encouragement of theatre touring. Besides its day-to-day encouragement of touring opera, dance and drama at all levels, the council is planning to establish an independent production company, for which it will provide one third of the investment required. The remainder of the money, which will come from private sources, will thus be new money available to promote up to six new touring productions annually. The return earned by the productions will be available for reinvestment in future events.

  I am greatly encouraged by the practical steps being taken by the Arts Council to enlarge its touring base, and I look forward to the development of similar schemes in other fields.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Page
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether arts bodies have taken full advantage of the payroll giving scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  The payroll giving scheme was introduced only on 6 April this year, and it is too early to say to what extent arts bodies have been able to benefit from it. I shall keep the position under review.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the latest number of museums and galleries in the United Kingdom; and what is his estimate of the annual number of visits to them.

  Mr. Luce
  A survey by the Museums Association in May 1985 recorded 2,131 museums and galleries in the United Kingdom. The information held on the Museums Association database suggests that some 73 million visits were made to museums and galleries in 1986—an increase of 5 million over 1985.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the present position on the development scheme of the Royal Opera House.

  Mr. Luce
  I am still considering the revised proposals for the development of the Covent Garden site, in so far as they affect my responsibilities under the development land trust deed. However, I understand that the Covent Garden Community Association has been granted a right of appeal against the development in the High Court, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this time.

  Theatre (Training Schemes)
  Mr. Blair
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he will take to help implement the recommendations of the Cole report "Theatre is for All" that there should be a 50:50 ratio of men and women in training schemes.

  Mr. Luce
  The report was commissioned by the Arts Council, and it is for it to implement the recommendations it has endorsed.

  In 1986–87, 42 awards for training schemes were made, of which 25 were to women and 17 to men, a ratio of about 60:40.

  Women's Theatre Companies
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Minister for the Arts what support women's theatre companies received from the Arts Council in the last financial year; and what proportion of the total funding of theatre companies this represents.

  Mr. Luce
  In 1986–87 two women's theatre companies (Monstrous Regiment and Women's Theatre Group) received joint funding of £140,000, which represents 1·2 per cent. of the Arts Council's allocation for drama, excluding the national companies. In addition, the Arts Council funded three women's theatre projects:

  Theatre of Black Women

  Blood Group

  Women's Comedy Workshop.

  Funding for these projects totalled £36,270 or 4·6 per cent. of the Arts Council's projects allocation.

  Regional Arts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will outline his plans to encourage the arts in the regions.

  Mr. Luce
  I welcome the shift of resources from London to the regions which has taken place as a result of the "Glory of the Garden" report.

  As I outlined in my speech to the Council of Regional Arts Associations' conference at Newcastle, I intend to place increasing emphasis on the plural funding of the arts, in the regions as in London.

  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of his arts marketing scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  I was pleased to announce on 30 July 22 awards to arts organisations under the scheme, reflecting a variety of innovative marketing techniques. I shall be interested to follow their progress and see how successful they are.

  There was a good response, with over 200 applications, but some showed a need to improve marketing expertise. I have therefore offered a one-day professional consultancy to the unsuccessful applicants.

  The scheme was experimental for one year. I do not believe it should be continued in its present form in 1988–89. I am now actively considering how I can follow it up to encourage arts bodies to market themselves more effectively in other ways.

  Funding
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Minister for the Arts what studies his Department has conducted into the effect on the arts in Britain of the present level of funding for the current year.

  Mr. Luce
  I do not believe that my Department should attempt to duplicate research carried out by independent bodies. I am currently helping to fund two projects by the Policy Studies Institute. One is a research study into the economic impact of the arts, the results of which are to be published early in 1988. The other project is the third in the series "Facts about the Arts", the aim of which is to present a comprehensive picture, in tables and narrative, of the arts scene, at a particular date, but also to give an indication of general trends.

  Museums
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Minister for the Arts what recent discussions he has had with representatives of museums in the public and private sectors.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet representatives of all sectors of the museums world both in London and during my regional visits. Most recently I attended the opening of the Winterhalter exhibition at the national portrait gallery. During November I look forward to visiting the national history museum's geological museum, and to seeing a number of museum developments outside London.

ENVIRONMENT

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on the question of the elimination of radioactive discharges from nuclear plants.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The total elimination of radioactivity in discharges from nuclear plants is impossible. Government policy is to ensure that discharges are reduced to levels which are as low as reasonably achievable. The authorising Departments are currently engaged on a programme of reviewing the liquid and gaseous authorisations for all nuclear installations in the United Kingdom, but operators are required to ensure the best practicable means to improve performance within the discharge limits set.

  Privatisation
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have invited tenders for the following services (a) street cleansing, (b) refuse collection, (c) the provision of school meals; and what information he has on the outside tenders compared with those from in house direct labour organisations.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not collect systematic data on these matters but much useful information can be found in the annual surveys of contracting out which have appeared in "Local Government Chronicle"; and in the newsletter "Public Service Review" published by the Public Service Research Centre.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the discussions between his Department's planning inspectorate and local planning authorities regarding delays in dealing with planning applications.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend's view is that authorities should normally be able to decide at least 80 per cent. of applications made to them within the statutory eight-week period. The latest figures show that approximately 65 per cent. of applications are decided within that period. We publish quarterly statistics of performance and encourage authorities with the poorest levels of performance to improve their handling of applications. The National Development Control Forum is shortly to publish guidelines on the handling of planning applications.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that tenants of local authority housing will not be transferred to housing action trusts without their own or the local authority's consent.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend will consult the relevant local authorities and inform local residents when he decides to seek parliamentary approval for the designation of an area as a housing action trust, but the final decision on whether to seek designation of a particular area must remain his.

  Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the community charge proposals will have on the provisions of the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.

  Mr. Howard
  Under the domestic rating system, rateable values are increased to take account of extensions and alterations to property. Rate relief is granted to disabled people to ensure that they do not have to pay higher bills as a result of modifications needed to their homes as a result of their disability. A similar provision will not be needed with the community charge, because improvements to people's homes will not affect the level of the charge.

  Disabled relief will continue in respect on non-domestic hereditaments.

  Pollution
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of future British sulphur emissions for the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 through to 1995; and how this compares with all other Western European countries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The level of future sulphur emissions will depend on factors such as future economic growth and energy demand, and estimates are therefore subject to considerable uncertainty. Official United Kingdom estimates, expressed, as a range, are available only for the years 1990 and 2000, as follows:
  583

  (000 tonnes SO2)

  1990

  3,400–4,200

  2000

  2,600–3,500

  In 1986 the executive body of the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution completed a major review of national strategies and policies for air pollution abatement, in the course of which estimates of future SO2 emissions were provided by most European countries. I am arranging to place a copy of the report1 in the Library.

  1 "National Strategies and Policies for Air Pollution Abatement" (annex, Table 1). Convention on long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, United Nations, New York, 1987.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the proposed National Rivers Authority will be freed from public sector borrowing requirement restrictions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No; the National Rivers Authority will be subject to financial controls equivalent to those applying to similar public bodies.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has proposals for establishing criteria for a charging policy by the proposed National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This is one of the issues being considered in the light of comments received on the consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority issued by the Government in July.

  £

  1985–86

  £

  1986–87

  £

  1987–88

  Willan Road Nursery

  50,000

  Revenue

  50,000

  Revenue

  55,000

  Revenue

  Broadwater Farm Youth Association*

  47,852

  Revenue

  48,852

  Revenue

  49,852

  Revenue

  Broadwater Farm Tenants Association

  —

  19,050

  Revenue

  18,050

  Revenue

  7,150

  Capital

  Broadwater Farm Nursery Classes

  39,600

  Revenue

  —

  —

  Broadwater Farm Skills Survey

  12,000

  Revenue

  —

  —

  Broadwater Farm Holiday Projects*

  9,500

  Revenue

  —

  2,500

  Revenue

  Broadwater Farm Enterprise Workshops

  —

  —

  400,000

  Capital

  Estate Action resources have also been allocated to Haringey borough council over the past two years in support of a range of capital housing works on Broadwater Farm.

  1986–87

  £646,989 supporting works including

  Anti-graffiti painting

  Security Works

  New Lighting

  Improvements to tower block

  Landscaping for children's day centre

  Improvements to tenants room

  Alarm systems for the elderly

  1987–88

  £359,533 allocated to date and supporting works including

  Improvements to the estates management office

  Landscaping and community gardens

  Anti-graffiti painting

  Irish in Britain Representation Group
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how much each of the London boroughs, of Haringey, Camden,

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amount and type from 1983 to 1986 of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom for each year and the total amount of hazardous waste imported, and the categories, for 1979.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no details held centrally of types of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom, or of total amounts imported before 1981. The following are the amounts of special waste imported each year between 1983 and 1986:

  Tonnes

  1983

  14,824

  1984

  5,000

  1985

  24,548

  1986

  53,000

  Broadwater Farm
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list all moneys paid either to Haringey council for use on projects on the Broadwater Farm estate, or to the Broadwater Farm youth association, by his Department in the last three years, giving revenue and capital expenditures and the amounts and projects in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  Over the past three years the following urban programme funding approvals have been given, by my Department for projects at Broadwater Farm estate. Those projects involving direct funding for the youth association are asterisked. The remainder are those of Haringey borough council.

  Islington and Hackney has paid in grants to the Irish in Britain Representation Group, stating capital and revenue grants; and if he will make a statement.
  585
  Mr. Chope
  None, since the Department does not collect systematic information about discretionary grants by local authorities.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what notifications have been received from Calderdale and Kirklees regarding the provision of gipsy sites in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  I am informed that Calderdale and Kirklees are currently considering the provision of gipsy sites in their areas.

  Station Site (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South on 26 October, what reasons were given for the rejection by the Property Services Agency of a rail link sharing the former Bradford Exchange station site with a courthouse; whether at any stage a threat was made expressly or by implication that the courthouse project would be moved to Kirklees if the Property Service Agency's views were not accepted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The advice that the Property Services Agency gave to the City of Bradford metropolitan district council was that, in its professional judgment, the site could not accommodate both a rail link and a courthouse to meet the requirements of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The decision on the appropriate use of the site was a matter for the council.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultations have taken place between officials of his Department and Walsall metropolitan borough council regarding the state of the Wimpey no fines properties in the Blakenall area of the borough.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been no further discussions since the Department's officers met Walsall metropolitan borough council on 16 September to discuss its overall housing programme; the matters discussed there, including the condition of Wimpey no fines properties, will be taken into account when we decide the HIP allocations for 1988–89.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is intended for the Minister for Housing or another Minister in his Department to visit the Wimpey no fines properties in Walsall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no current plans to do so; however, as my reply to the hon. Member of 21 October explained (Vol. 120, Cols.829–830), the Department's officials are keeping Ministers fully informed of the position.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received
  586
  from local authorities (a) supporting and (b) opposing the introduction of the community charge as a replacement for domestic rates.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead. East (Ms. Quin) on 24 July (Vol. 120, col.722).

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he proposes to specify the terms and conditions of appointment of community charge registration officers;

  (2) whether he will permit authorities to nominate existing officers appointed under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 as community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Ridley
  I intend to provide that the community charge registration officer for a local authority will he the person who has responsibility for administering the authority's financial affairs under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proposed duties of the community charge registration officer.

  Mr. Ridley
  The registration officer will be under a duty to compile and maintain an accurate and up-to-date register of all those who are liable to pay community charges in the area of his authority.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it will be a matter for the community charge registration officer or the local authority to decide matters of policy and resourcing relating to the task of community charge registration.

  Mr. Ridley
  Registration officers will be responsible for compiling and maintaining community charge registers. Local authorities will be required to provide registration officers with sufficient resources to carry out those functions.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received on his proposals to reform local government finance since June 1987; what percentage of these letters he estimates to be in favour of his proposals; and what percentage or these letters he estimates to be opposed to his proposals.

  Mr. Ridley
  Since June 1987 my Department has received more than 3,000 letters about specific aspects of our proposals and requests for further information. Those who have written were neither invited to, nor on the whole did they, express a view on the proposals as a whole.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each local authority (a) the number of persons he estimates would be liable to pay the community charge and (b) the number of community charge payers whom he expects to receive assistance with the community charge by a rebate system.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed in the Library the adult population figures underlying the community charge exemplifications which I published on 29 June (Vol. 118, c.44). It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the numbers of people likely to be eligible for community charge rebates in each area.
  587
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposed treatment of the Corporation of the City of London for the purposes of community charge and non-domestic rates.

  Mr. Ridley
  Yes. The City of London is unique among local authorities in its very small resident population combined with its need to provide services for a large daytime inflow of commuters. It is also unique in that the city retains a "business vote". In the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) it was accepted that special arrangements would be required for the City of London. My officials have therefore discussed with the corporation and with the local authority associations proposals to allow the corporation to levy a small variable non-domestic rate provided a pre-determined proportion of expenditure is met by community charge payers. There will be arrangements to offset the contribution from city non-domestic ratepayers to city expenditure from their contribution to the national non-domestic rate pool.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each local authority (a) the number of electors, (b) the number of domestic ratepayers who (i) now pay full rates, (ii) now pay part rates because of assistance by rate rebates and (iii) now pay no rates because of assistance by rate rebates and (c) the number of spouses or partners of domestic ratepayers who would be jointly and severally liable for the rates bill had the provisions he proposes for joint and several liability of community charge applied to rates.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed in the Library the available information for each local authority on the numbers of domestic properties liable for rates and the numbers of ratepayers receiving full and partial rebates.

  The number of electors in each local authority area is published in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitor EL/87/1, available from the Library.

  Precise information on the number of ratepayers' spouses or partners who would be jointly and severally liable for the rates bill is not available. However the 1981 census county reports, available from the Library, show in table 39 numbers of people living with spouses in each local authority area.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimated costs incurred since June on promoting his proposals for local government finance reform, itemising separately (a) publications, (b) videos and similar material and (c) promotional tours by Ministers.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 October to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the latest figures he has for poll taxes, expressed both as total revenue and the charge per adult in £ sterling, in (a) Japan, (b) the Canadian provinces and (c) any other countries;

  (2) what information he has as to how many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries do not have a tax on residential or domestic property.
  588
  Mr. Ridley
  The most recent data we have are contained in annex K to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd 9714).

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to monitor the current year's electoral registration process to discern whether the prospect of a community charge is resulting in a change in the numbers of electors registered.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of staff, their grades and duties working on the implementation of his proposals to reform local government finance.

  Mr. Ridley
  The following staff in my Department are engaged on all aspects of the reform of local government finance.

  Grade

  Full time

  Part time

  Grade 3

  —

  2

  Grade 4

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  3

  Grade 6

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  5

  5

  SEO

  1

  2

  HEO

  7

  3

  EO

  5

  2

  AO

  3

  2

  AA

  2

  —

  PS

  3

  1

  Typist

  2

  —

  Total

  32

  21

  A number of staff in other Government Departments are also involved, as part of their other duties, in this area of work.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether estimates of the adult population used for revenue support grant and distribution of the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate pool will include students and persons who are exempt from paying community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have yet to make proposals on the estimates of adult population to be used for the purposes of distributing revenue support grant and the proceeds of the national non-domestic rate pool. I intend, however, that these estimates should take account of the fact that students will pay a reduced community charge and that other categories will be exempt from paying the community charge.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the full-time equivalent of the numbers of staff of his Department employed on dealing with correspondence from the general public in relation to his proposals to reform local government finance.

  Mr. Ridley
  There are approximately 13½ staff (fte) involved in answering correspondence on rate reform. This includes both correspondence from Members of Parliament and the general public. Answering the inordinate number of parliamentary questions from the hon. Gentleman of course imposes considerable additional burden on my Department's resources.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the sources of the estimates of

  589
  adult population by local authorities for the purposes of (a) revenue support grant and (b) distribution of the proceeds from the national non-domestic rate pool.

  Mr. Ridley
  No decision has yet been made as to the sources from which esimates of adult population should be drawn.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to deal with the rating of new domestic property during the period of phasing out rates.

  Mr. Ridley
  I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the legislation.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to give any assistance to local authorities whose areas contain large numbers of students to meet the cost of expenditure above that which would be financed by the basic community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  The revenue support grant system will compensate fully for differences between authorities up to the level of their assessed need to spend; the full cost of expenditure above that level will fall on local charge payers.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to discuss with local government and in what forum the proposals for a community charge rebate scheme.

  Mr. Ridley
  We are considering, with the local authority associations, the most appropriate forum for future discussions on the community charge rebate system.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Commission for Racial Equality on the effect of his community charge proposals on families from the ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Ridley
  None.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge to be paid by student nurses living in hospitals attached to teaching hospitals in inner London.

  Mr. Ridley
  I placed illustrative community charge figures for all local authorities, including inner London boroughs, in the Library on 29 June.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to change the financial limits measured in terms of a penny rate product if his proposals to change the system of local government finance are carried through.

  Mr. Ridley
  No decisions have yet been taken on this matter, but appropriate arrangements will be proposed.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for reviewing rateable value limits in the Leasehold Reform Act when domestic rates are replaced by the poll tax.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I propose to issue shortly a consultation paper on the implications for the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and other landlord and tenant legislation of the proposed abolition of domestic rates.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 26 October, Official Report, columns 39–40, giving figures of gainers
  590
  and losers by households in England on the introduction of the full community charge, he will make a statement showing why the single pensioner and other single adult losers are greater than the same categories for Great Britain given in table J7 of Cmnd. 9714, "Paying For Local Government".

  Mr. Howard
  The figures are on different bases. Those I gave to the hon. Member on 26 October (Vol. 121, columns 39–40) showed the estimated position without any transitional grant provisions. Table J7 of "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) showed the estimated effect with the continuation of the transitional grant provisions proposed in the Green Paper.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report any information he has on a parish-by-parish basis on the effects of his proposals to reform local government finance on the finances of parish councils, showing (a) the amount of parish precept per household and (b) the amount of community charge per adult in respect of parish services, calculated on the same basis as the figures referred to in his answer on 29 June, Official Report, column 44.

  Mr. Ridley
  There are about 8,000 parish councils. Information about parish precepts is available but could only be expressed as an amount per household at disproportionate cost.

  Information about parish expenditure is not collected centrally. As a result of our proposals for the payment of grant and non-domestic rates published on 23 September, parish council expenditure will be supported by grant and non-domestic rates in the same way as other local government expenditure. The illustrative community charges published on 29 June include parish precepts.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report his estimate of the 1987–88 community charge for the City of London on the same basis as that for all other authorities referred to in his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 44.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. We have always made it clear that separate arrangements would be necessary for the City of London.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 22 October, Official Report, column 862–3, he will place in the Library the comments he has received from the Audit Commission on the effect of his proposals for the reform of local government finance on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of local authorities.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. I do not have permission from the commission to publish its comments.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the effect on the level of community charge in each local authority of a 5 per cent. evasion rate, based on the figures referred to in his answer on 29 June, Official Report, column 44.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. There is no basis for assuming a uniform 5 per cent. rate of evasion.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to define great personal

  591
  sensitivity in the context of information which will not be available to community charge registration officers, pursuant to his answer of 21 October, column 825.

  Mr. Ridley
  As I indicated in my answer of 21 October (Vol. 120, col.825), such material will be prescribed in regulations.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to omit any members of Her Majesty's Forces from the community charge register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  It would be impractical to register individually the most mobile service personnel for the personal community charge. It would also be undesirable, for security reasons, for certain details to be included in community charges registers.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his latest estimates of the likely evasion rate of community charge.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have made no such estimate.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information local authorities will be permitted to provide on total revenue and spending when sending out poll tax demands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 29 October]: This is a matter for further discussion with the local authority associations. It is not obvious that any specific prohibitions will be required. In line with our proposals for the operation of the grant system and the local collection fund, however, we shall be taking powers to prescribe the minimum information to be provided and the format of the community charge bill.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what instructions or codes of practice he laid down in respect of the appointment of consultants by the London Docklands development corporation, and what action he proposes to take consequently on the report of auditors to the corporation, Robson Rhodes Corporation, on future procedure for appointing consultants adopted by the London Docklands development corporation;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from Messrs. Robson Rhodes to the London Docklands development corporation concerning its annual accounts together with any reply or statements it made in response.

  Mr. Trippier
  The corporation is required by the terms of its grant memorandum to award consultancy contracts on a competitive basis.

  The corporation has not yet completed its internal consideration of the management letter. It will do so at the next meeting of its audit committee. My Department will then consider the letter and the adequacy of the LDDC's response.

  I will consider what statement should be made for the Official Report.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the names of consultants appointed by the London Docklands development corporation within its expenditure on
  592
  consultancies of £7·9 million in the last financial year, together with the nature of the contract, and indicating those cases where the auditors have found no evidence of formal competition.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes. I shall do so as soon as the information has been brought together.

  Planning Zones
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made towards the introduction of simplified planning zones.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A commencement order and regulations enabling local planning authorities in England and Wales to make simplified planning zone schemes (SPZ's) come into force today. The regulations provide the detailed procedures and were the subject of consultation earlier this year.

  SPZ's are based on the planning regime successfully pioneered in enterprise zones and will provide local authorities with an important new means of facilitating development, particularly in the older urban areas. They enable local planning authorities to give advance planning permission for specified types of development in defined areas. Schemes will provide developers with certainty about the acceptability of projects, and remove the need for them to make individual planning applications in the area concerned.

  I hope that authorities will take full advantage of this new opportunity and prepare schemes as soon as practicable.

  Certain types of development are excluded from the scope of SPZ's, and the Act provides that SPZ's cannot be designated in certain protected areas such as national parks and green belts.

  New, simplified procedures for the preparation of local plans also come into operation today.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Robert Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a timetable for the implementation of competitive tendering procedures for individual local government services in the phasing programme.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department is issuing a consultation paper today which sets out proposals for implementation of part I of the Local Government Bill in England. I am sending my hon. Friend and members of Standing Committee A copies of the paper, and I have also placed a copy in the Library.

  The paper proposes a phased introduction of competition by local authorities, with authorities split into groups and each group taking the activities covered by the Bill in a different order. Each group will have to expose activities to competition at six-monthly intervals, starting by 1 April 1989. All authorities will have to expose at least 10 per cent. of their ground maintenance work to competition by that date, and that percentage figure will be increased to 100 per cent. over a five-year period.

  The paper also proposes a de minimis exemption so that authorities would not have to expose any activity to competition if they spend less than £100,000 per annum on carrying it out.

  Comments on the proposals are to be sent to the Department by 31 January 1988.

  Whale Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the importation of whale products according to product and ultimate use.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 29 October 1987]: Applicants to the Department to import whale products under EC regulation 3626/82 which implements the convention on international trade and endangered species within the European Community must specify the product concerned and the purpose of import. Import permits are normally granted only for personal or scientific purposes. During the last eight years various products have been imported for these purposes including teeth, bone, tusk, blood, powder, sperm, sperm oil and spermaceti wax.

  Rates
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a report giving his latest assessment of the effect of a revaluation of non-domestic property, showing separately the effects on a regional basis and by type of property.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd 9714), paragraph D15–23, indicated the expected broad effects of revaluation. Since then, several leading firms of surveyors have published more detailed forecasts which generally confirm those contained in the Green Paper.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from (a) the Confederation of British Industry and (b) the Institute of Directors on his proposals for a national non-domestic rate.

  Mr. Ridley
  The CBI response to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" supported the Government's proposals in broad terms, subject to certain conditions. It has since expressed strong support for the Government's manifesto commitments, while making it clear that they have views about how those commitments should be achieved. Exchanges of view are continuing.

  The IOD in its response to the Green Paper welcomed the community charge, but opposed the proposals for a national non-domestic rate, although noting that
  "By strength of feeling, however, there was probably a majority in favour of a uniform business rate because members in a minority of areas saw the proposal as literally their last hope."

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the figures from form ACCR 86/87, showing for each local authority (a) total accumulated capital receipts and (b) cash-backed accumulated receipts at 31 March.

  Mr. Ridley
  Returns from local authorities for 1986–87 are currently being received and analysed. When the information is complete, I will place the figures in the Library of the House.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what jurisdiction the proposed National Rivers Authority will have in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is not possible to go beyond what was said in the Government's consultation paper on the National Rivers Authority, published in July, until we have considered all the comments received on that paper. Specific questions about the jurisdiction of the National Rivers Authority in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

DEFENCE

  Meteorological Office (Storm Warnings)
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what public warnings were issued on the night of 15 and 16 October by the Meteorological Office when the hurricane arrived at the coastline of the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will publish the precise time at which the Meteorological Office recorded the existence of the hurricane in the vicinity of the United Kingdom on the night of Thursday 15 and 16 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 29 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  British Petroleum
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of the use of the Royal Marines and Commandos in the British Petroleum share launch.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence who authorised the use of Royal Marines to help launch the BP offer price announcement on 15 October; how much was paid for their services; and who paid.

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of the Royal Marines on this occasion was authorised by the Directorate of Naval Recruiting in accordance with standard procedures. The precise costs to be recovered from BP are still being assessed.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date on which the Royal Yacht Britannia was last tested operationally in her role as a Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve auxiliary hospital ship.

  Mr. Freeman
  Her Majesty's Yacht Britannia's declared wartime role is as a naval hospital ship: she has no formal connection with the Royal Naval Reserve. Although Britannia has not been involved in operations as a hospital ship, she has exercised this role on a number of occasions and, in January 1986, she provided valuable medical facilities during the evacuation of civilian refugees from Aden.

  British Nuclear Tests Veterans' Association
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received recent representations from the British Nuclear Tests Veterans' Association regarding compensation for their members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes, we have received such representations. Under present arrangements claims for compensation will be considered by the Department of Health and Social Security.

  RNAD Coulport
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will invite tenders for the construction of a floating jetty at RNAD Coulport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my predecessor gave on 3 March 1987. In matters of design and construction, the Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. The floating jetty at RNAD Coulport is a unique and complex structure, and the design work and associated hydraulic model tests are well advanced. The Property Services Agency now expects to invite tenders in the next few weeks.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Terry Fields
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations have been made for specialist British troops to be used in a supportive capacity for a possible United States land operation in the Gulf region; what specialist training such British forces have received; in what circumstances their troops will be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No preparations have been made for participation by specialist British troops in any such operation.

  Theatre Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any decision affecting the modernisation of theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces has been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on 24 March 1987 at column 162.

  Nuclear Weapons (Underground Storage)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have concluded their discussions with the United States Government or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation officials about the construction of underground storage facilities for nuclear weapons in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My Department is involved in continuing discussions with the United States Government on this matter.

  Armed Forces (Bullying)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take to combat bullying and brutality in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Feeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 28 October 1987 at column 341.

  NATO (Main Battle Tank)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is Her Majesty's Government's policy upon the statement of NATO's Secretary-General that one country, or consortium of countries, should be asked to design and build NATO's next generation of main battle tank.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In accordance with our policy of seeking international collaboration in weapons procurement wherever this is practicable and advantageous, we are exploring with our allies the prospects for harmonising operational characteristics and time scales for potential requirements for a next generation of main battle tank. It is too early, however, to prescribe an appropriate procurement method for such a project.

  Nuclear Arms Links
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with Mr. Andre Giraud, France's Defence Secretary, particularly in respect of nuclear arms links.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend last met M. Giraud on 26 October in the course of the WEU ministerial meeting at The Hague. They discussed a range of defence matters of mutual interest.

  Modular Stand-Off Weapon
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what the likely cost would be to Her Majesty's Government of the development of a modular stand-off weapon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is too early to say.

  Lance Missile
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has had any discussions about the development of an improved Lance battlefield nuclear missile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly reviews with his ministerial colleagues in NATO the need for the modernisation of NATO's nuclear systems. This is an essential element in the Alliance's policy of maintaining only the minimum forces necessary for deterrence. No decisions on modernisation as it affects British forces have yet been taken.

  Conscription
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether staff in his Department undertook any press briefings during the summer recess in respect of the issue of conscription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No press briefings on the issue of conscription have been undertaken by staff in my
  597
  Department during and since the summer recess. The Government's view on the issue was given by the Prime Minister on 20 March 1986: conscription would mean an enormous change in the whole of our defence policy which is founded on professional armed services, and which has served our country well.

  Cruise Missile Components
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is aware in advance of each occasion when cruise missile components are flown into the USAF Alconbury airbase in Huntingdonshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The United States Air force has kept my Department informed of the progress being made towards achieving a ground-launched cruise missile operating capability at RAF Molesworth. This includes its programme of deliveries of GLCM components.

  British Telecom Research
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost to his Department of use of the British Telecom research centre near Brightwell.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The cost to the Department of the use of the British Telecom research laboratory at Martlesham heath, near Brightwell, was approximately £800,000 for the financial year 1986–87.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether nuclear materials have been kept at the Frates ammunition dump, Gosport, or Collingwood naval base, Fareham;

  (2) what is the estimated number of miles travelled per annum on Britain's roads by vehicles carrying military nuclear weapons material.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on the location or movement of nuclear weapons or their component materials.

  NFR90 Frigate
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expenditure (i) incurred and (ii) committed by Her Majesty's Government on the development of the NFR90 frigate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The expenditure incurred to date by Her Majesty's Government on the collaborative NFR90 project is £1·7 million, this being the United Kingdom share of the cost of the feasibility study. No other monies are currently committed to this project. A decision on whether the United Kingdom will enter the project's next phase, project definition, is expected to be made soon.

  Arms Control (Inspection)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is proposed that all cruise missile bases in the United Kingdom will he subject to Soviet inspection under the proposed arms control agreement and if he will make a statement.
  598
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  We are in close consultation with the United States on the form which a verification regime associated with the proposed INF agreement might take, including the question of inspections. Under such a regime, we would expect all ground-launched missile operating bases to be subject to inspection, including those in the United Kingdom.

  Exercise Certain Strike
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to Her Majesty's Government of participation in Exercise Certain Strike.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The total cost of United Kingdom participation in Exercise Certain Strike is not identified in the Estimates separately from the total provision for training. Our assessment of the extra costs involved has not yet been completed.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will declassify the information as to the number of nuclear weapons (a) possessed and (b) operated under dual-key arrangements by the United Kingdom which fall within the terms of the proposed arms control agreement, and as to the percentage, within a band of 10 per cent., that this number of nuclear weapons related to the total number of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No British owned or operated nuclear weapons fall within the terms of the proposed INF agreement.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of nuclear weapons in Britain which are (a) land-based, (b) sea-based and (c) air-based systems.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I cannot add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13 July 1987 at column 345.

  Battlefield Artillery Engagement System
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original estimated cost, and what is the current estimated cost, of the battlefield artillery engagement system and associated software; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Current cost estimates are commercially sensitive. Estimated costs at the start of full development were some £175 million when revalued to average outturn prices.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many years late on the original time scale the battlefield artillery engagement system is currently running; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Between the start of full development in 1980 and subsequent conversion to incentivised contractual arrangements in 1985, there was a slip of approximately two years. Subsequently there has been a slippage in the development programme of a number of weeks. The extent to which this may affect dates for introducing equipment into service will depend on progress from now on.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the likely reduction in provision to the Army of the

  599
  current proposals for the battlefield artillery engagement system as against the original plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Army will receive sufficient equipments to meet essential operational requirements. Exact numbers of equipments to be deployed are classified.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department has adopted to monitor the efficiency, management and cost in the development of the battlefield artillery engagement system; what assessment he has made of the efficacy of these procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since 1985 the contract for development and the first phase of BATES production has been on a maximum price-target cost basis. This offers the contractor financial incentives and includes agreed levels of achievement against which progress is closely monitored. Regular progress reports are formally reviewed between the MOD and the contractor. These arrangements can be amended should this be considered appropriate.

  Marconi
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken upon the findings of his Department's investigations into the allegations that Marconi, or its four subsidiaries in Portsmouth, made excessive profits on Ministry of Defence contracts; how much public money is involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Investigations by the Ministry of Defence police into allegations of irregularities over contracts with Marconi Defence Systems began in October 1986 and are continuing. Responsibility for the direction of the investigations and the prosecution of any cases which arise from them was referred to the Director of Public Prosecution's fraud investigation group on 19 August 1987. As this is now a matter for the Law Officers of the Crown I am unable to comment further about these investigations.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many registered entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984 is that there will be no charge for current, past and potential MOD employees but for other data subjects the statutory fee of £10 will be charged. The MOD has six register entries covering a total of 16 purposes. The total cost to a data subject, who is not a current, past or potential MOD employee, seeking access to personal data held under all registrations would be £60.

  Jeffrey Singh
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take on the evidence of
  600
  bullying and racism arising from the death of Jeffrey Singh, found hanged at Shorncliffe barracks, Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The death of junior soldier Jeffrey Singh was fully investigated by a coroner's court. No evidence of bullying or racism was found.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of nuclear (i) missiles, (ii) warheads and (iii) throw-weight for NATO forces (a) worldwide, (b) in Europe and (c) in the United Kingdom: (A) in June 1979, (B) now and (C) after implementation of the provisions of the current intermediate nuclear force negotiations.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Information on the number and location of nuclear missiles deployed with NATO forces has been published annually in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" since 1980.

  The information which the hon. Member is seeking on warheads and throw-weight is classified.

  Under the currently proposed INF agreement, all NATO's ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles would be eliminated.

  Following an INF agreement, it will remain NATO's policy to maintian the minimum level of forces consistent with credible deterrence.

  Members of Parliament (Classified Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department takes to access eligibility for access to classified material of right hon. and hon. Members (a) appointed to, or (b) candidates for, parliamentary positions associated with defence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  None.

  Committee of Public Accounts (Project Notification)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the system of notification of his Department to the Public Accounts Committee of projects costing over a certain sum; whether that threshold refers to eventual total anticipated cost; and when the system is next due for renewal

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The system of notification to which the hon. Member refers was described by my predecessor on 2 February 1987, columns 516–17. The threshold of £250 million related to the total expected cost of development and production combined. The Government have no plans to review the system, but this does not exclude the possibility that changes of detail may be agreed between the Committee and my Department from time to time.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure that overall control of events following an accident involving United States nuclear weapons on British soil rest with the British authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is very close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States on
  601
  contingency planning for the highly unlikely event of an accident involving a United States nuclear weapon in this country. The roles and responsibilities of both Governments are governed by special arrangements between the two nations. It is clearly understood in these arrangements that the United Kingdom has sovereign rights over its territory and territorial waters. In addition, as in all circumstances, United States military units in the United Kingdom would be required to comply with the relevant laws of the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Accident Exercises
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received about the use of thorium 232 in nuclear accident training exercises on British soil; if he was consulted about its use in advance; what assessment he has made of the implications for the environment and for the safety of the civilian population of the use of thorium 232; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements he has made to ensure the safety of all civilians living or camping in the vicinity of Royal Air Force bases on which United States nuclear accident teams carry out their exercises involving the use of radioactive material.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My Department has received two representations specifically regarding the alleged use of thorium 232 during nuclear accident training exercises in the United Kingdom. Thorium 232 has not been used during nuclear accident training exercises in the United Kingdom by the British armed forces. In addition, I have been assured by the United States authorities that their military units based in this country do not use radioactive contaminants of any kind during United States nuclear accident response training exercises in the United Kingdom.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the proportion of (a) development and (b) the production costs of the warhead element of the Trident programme which will be attributable to (i) the United States of America and (ii) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to release information of this nature for reasons of security.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what factors he attributes the fall since 1981 in the cost estimate for the Trident warhead procurement programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The fall is attributable to the fact that after six years it has been possible to estimate the costs to completion with greater precision.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what factor he attributes the rise since 1981 in the proportion of total Trident programme expenditure attributable to warhead, miscellaneous and unallocated contingency expenditure.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Approximately one third of the increase in the proportion of the Trident budget attributable to "Warhead, miscellaneous and unallocated contingency etc." is due to net cost increases in the areas of support and 602
  contingency within this element of the budget. The remainder is due to net cost reductions in other elements of the Trident budget.

  Army Exercise, Angus
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of tests at an army camp at Angus, Scotland, in which troops were sprayed with CS gas from an Army aircraft; what arrangements were made to ensure the safety of the troops involved how many similar exercises have been conducted.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No Army exercises involving the spraying of CS gas from the air are conducted.

  RAF Stations
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current and proposed military uses of RAF Bawdsey, RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  RAF Bawdsey is, and will remain, a United Kingdom air defence station. RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge are, and will remain, operational flying stations used by the United States Air Force.

  Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many current defence projects not separately notified to Parliament are estimated to exceed on completion (a) £50 million and (b) £250 million; and what is the total estimated cost of these projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The 1987 major project statement for equipment now in preparation will include all the 38 current defence projects with approved expenditure in excess of £250 million—£200 million for certain projects; the estimated total value of approved work shown is expected to be some £42 billion at average 1987–88 outturn prices. The information in respect of projects exceeding £50 million is not readily available in the form sought. But the first defence equipment project report which will be submitted to the House of Commons Defence Committee next year and which will list projects estimated to cost £25 million or more for development or £50 million or more for production, is expected to add approximately 60 projects to those which feature in the major project statement.

  Nuclear Attack
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of current military defence arrangements against nuclear attack; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Government's whole defence strategy is designed to deter a potential aggressor from any form of attack. Many of our military defence arrangements are designed to counter more than one form of attack and it is therefore not possible separately to identify the cost of the arrangements against one particular form of attack.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier aircraft have crashed since 1979; and what is the total cost involved.
  603
  Mr. Freeman
  Since 1 January 1979, 26 Royal Air Force and 12 Royal Navy Harriers have suffered irreparable damage in accidents. The cost of this number of aircraft, in current prices, would be approximately £304 million.

  Frigates and Destroyers
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, in pursuance of the reply he gave in paragraph 11 of Cm. 228, "Implementing the Lessons of the Falklands Campaign", if he will name the 50 frigates and destroyers of the surface escort force which are either (a) operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training or (b) undergoing refit or on standby; and if he will distinguish into which category each falls.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Paragraph 11 of Cmnd. 228 refers to the Government's continuing commitment to maintain a surface escort force of about 50 destroyers and frigates. I refer the hon. Member to annex B of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987". Since that document was published HMS Naid, HMS Fife and HMS Aurora have paid off; HMS Jupiter and HMS Alacrity have left refit and HMS Brilliant and HMS Hermione have entered refit.

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the number of frigates ordered each year since 1979, giving the yards at which the orders are now being built.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information required is:

  Vessel

  Dale ordered

  Shipyard

  Type 22s

  HMS Boxer*

  April 1979

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Beaver*

  April 1979

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Brave*

  April 1981

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS London*

  February 1982

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Sheffield

  December 1982

  Swam Hunter Shipbuilders

  HMS Coventry

  December 1982

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders

  HMS Cornwall

  December 1982

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Cumberland

  December 1982

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Campbeltown

  January 1985

  Cammell Laird Shipbuilders

  HMS Chatham

  January 1985

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders

  Type 23s

  HMS Norfolk

  October 1984

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Marlborough

  August 1986

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders

  HMS Argyll

  September 1986

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  HMS Lancaster

  September 1986

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  The following Type 42 destroyers were also ordered in this period:

  HMS Gloucester*

  March 1979

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd.

  HMS Edinburgh*

  April 1979

  Cammell Laird Shipbuilders

  HMS York*

  April 1979

  Swan Hunter Shipbuilders

  * Denotes vessel accepted from the shipbuilder.

  Defence Installations, Uist
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what implications the development of the simulated combat trainer for ground-launched low-level air defence by British Aerospace and others at Letchworth
  604
  will have for his Department's installations in the Uists, particularly as regards the numbers of both civilian and military personnel either stationed or employed there.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Rapier simulators are used to improve the realism and effectiveness of training, and thus help to maximise the benefit obtained from the firing of live missiles which will continue to take place at the Royal Artillery range, Hebrides. Thus there are currently no plans to alter the number of personnel employed at the range as a result of the development of new simulators.

  Bullying
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been discharged in the last three years after being found responsible for bullying; and if he will give details of the services concerned and the ranks of those so discharged.

  Mr. Freeman
  Bullying is not specifically defined as an offence under the Service Discipline Acts. Charges would be framed under those sections of the Acts appropriate to the circumstances. Since January 1986 instances of bullying in the Army have been recorded separately from other disciplinary cases involving assault. In the period since then, two Army corporals and one private soldier have been dismissed following courts martial for offences involving bullying, all in the current year. One Royal Marine corporal has also been dismissed from the service following his court martial for assault on another Royal Marine.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has recently received regarding bullying and initiation ceremonies in the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department keeps me informed of all allegations of bullying and so-called initiation ceremonies which are investigated by the SIB. I routinely receive periodic reports on this subject, and I am informed of any new cases of bullying which arise.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the circular sent recently to units of the armed forces regarding the need to prevent bullying against recruits.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my comments in the recent defence debate on 28 October, at column 393.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Southern Health and Social Services Area Board
  Mr. John David
  Taylor asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total possible membership of the Southern health and social services area board; how many members presently serve on this board; how many members voted (a) for and (b) against the proposed new £2 million area board health headquarters at the board meeting this month; and how many of those who voted for this new headquarters are (i) elected councillors and (ii) non-elected persons nominated by him for board membership.

  Mr. Needham
  There are currently 24 places on the Southern health and social services board, one of which is vacant. At the October meeting of the board a proposal to rescind the decision taken in January to provide a new
  605
  headquarters building pending further information and discussion was defeated by five votes to seven. The votes of individual members were not recorded.

  Police Advisory Board
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates in 1985, 1986 and 1987, respectively, the Police Federation of Northern Ireland requested that a meeting be held of the Police Advisory Board; what response he gave to those requests; and why no meeting of the board has taken place.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Police Federation for Northern Ireland requested meetings of the Police Advisory Board on 9 September 1985, 16 May 1986, and 11 May 1987. After the 9 September 1985 request, the Police Federation itself sought a delay to enable further topics to be tabled. On 16 May 1986 it asked for two further items to be added to the agenda. The federation was informed that a meeting of the board would be called to discuss only the first subject raised and it was asked if it would be prepared to proceed on that basis. I am not aware of any reply being received. The latest request is being considered in consultation with all the interested parties; and the federation has been informed accordingly.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Police Advisory Board last met; and if he will provide a list of the meetings that have taken place during each of the past five years of the Police Advisory Boards of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Police Advisory Board for Northern Ireland last met on 22 March 1982. Meetings of the Police Advisory Boards in England and Wales, and Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Edmund-Davies Report
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to give effect to recommendation 41 of the Edmund-Davies report as accepted by the Government of the day; what machinery he has established through the Police Advisory Board to give effect to this recommendation; and when the Police Advisory Board for Northern Ireland last discussed this matter.

  Mr. Stanley
  The intention of recommendation 42 was to ensure that the police receive all the relevant benefits of industrial legislation. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland first raised recommendation 41 as a potential point for discussion by the Police Advisory Board on II May 1987 and the request is still receiving consideration.

  ACE Scheme
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations have been informed of the possible loss of Government funding for ACE workers or other projects because of their present or proposed uses of the Conway mill buildings in West Belfast; and what changes such organisations were advised to take if they wished to retain such funding.
  606
  Mr. Stanley
  Three organisations were informed of the possible loss of Government funding because of their use of the Conway mill facilities. To name them might place individuals involved with them at risk. The organisations concerned were advised to relocate.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the reasons for withdrawing ACE funding from the Twinbrooke tenants and community association; and what arrangements will be made for provision of a comparable service to the local community in the future.

  Mr. Stanley
  ACE funding was withheld in accordance with the Government's policy as stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 27 June 1985, at column 451. Discussions have taken place with two other groups about the provision of similar services in this area.

  Payment of Debt Act
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are subject to deductions from (a) wages and (b) welfare benefits under the Payment of Debt Act in the years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, and 1986–87; and what is the number of representations he has received urging repeal or amendments to the Act.

  Mr. Stanley
  The number of people from whom deductions from salaries have been made since 1983 under the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 is approximately as follows:

  Numbers

  1983–84

  2,267

  1984–85

  2,025

  1985–86

  2,135

  1986–87

  1,608

  These figures are the aggregate of the numbers of people from whom deductions from wages or salaries have been made on behalf of Northern Ireland Electricity, the Northern Ireland gas undertakings, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the rating division of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  Similar information in relation to deductions from welfare payments is not available.

  There have been five requests calling for the repeal or amendment of the Act since 1983.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those convicted of crimes in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information sought is not available. However, in Northern Ireland the number of offenders ordered by the courts to be detained in hospital for treatment, on the grounds that they were suffering from mental illness, in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Number

  1982

  —

  1983

  —

  607

  Number

  1984

  —

  1985

  1

  1986

  3

  All were detained by restriction orders made under article 47 of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 and the previous similar provisions of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961. In this context mental illness covers any suffering from schizophrenic psychoses but not exclusively so.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many current occupants of Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis;

  (2) how many people were admitted to her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland who had previously been discharged from mental illness hospitals and units after a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis in each of the last five years; and how many were recidivists.

  Mr. Stanley
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many occupants of National Health Service hospital and unit beds in Northern Ireland have a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis; what those figures are as percentages of (a) mental and (b) all hospital beds in Northern Ireland; and how those figures compare with each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  First Admissions Per cent, change since 1984

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Number

  Total Admissions Per cent, change since 1984

  Rate per 100,000 population

  1984

  134

  —

  9

  1,105

  —

  71

  1985

  121

  —9·7

  8

  1,089

  —1·4

  70

  1986

  108

  —19·4

  7

  917

  —17·0

  59

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the discharges and deaths by length of stay, including percentage change in numbers and

  Length of stay of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis

  Numbers

  Less than one month

  One and less than three months

  Three and less than six months

  Six and less than 12 months

  12 months or over

  Total discharged/died

  Per cent. change over

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1984

  1984

  484

  44

  366

  33

  132

  12

  51

  5

  63

  6

  1,096

  —

  1985

  479

  43

  430

  38

  109

  10

  52

  5

  50

  4

  1,120

  +2·2

  1986

  423

  43

  361

  37

  78

  8

  35

  4

  84

  9

  981

  —10·5

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been specifically earmarked for the care of the mentally ill following the closure of mental hospitals in Northern Ireland in the last year; and if he will make a statement.
  608

  Year Ending

  Number of beds occupied by patients with diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis

  Percentage of mental illness beds occupied by patients with diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis

  Percentage of all hospital beds occupied by patients with diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis

  30 June 19862

  1,237

  35·1

  9·1

  30 June 1985

  1,422

  39·2

  10·9

  30 June 1984

  1,407

  39·8

  10·9

  30 June 1983

  1,396

  36·7

  10·6

  30 June 1982

  1,356

  1

  1

  1 Not available due to industrial 1 action in the health service.

  2 Latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funds have been specifically earmarked for the care of the mentally ill following the closure of mental hospitals in Northern Ireland in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  No psychiatric hospitals have been closed in Northern Ireland during the last year.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the admissions by diagnosis and order of admissions, including percentage change in numbers and rates per 100,000 population, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in Northern Ireland for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Mr. Needham:
  The information is as follows:

  percentage distribution, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in Northern Ireland for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship (Northern Ireland) wrote to me in general terms seeking assurances that adequate provision will be made for sufferers of schizophrenia moving out to live within the community in future.

  In my reply I gave the chairman the assurances sought.
  609
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those convicted of crimes in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years had ever previously been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis.

  Mr. Stanley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him today.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Community Psychiatric Nurses employed in the Health an Personal Social Services

  Year

  Number

  1983

  62

  1984

  64

  1985

  75

  1986

  79

  1987

  115

  AIDS
  The Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been diagnosed as HIV positive over the last three years; how many of these were haemophiliacs; what plans he has for counselling and support for HIV positive patients within the health service; how many patients in Northern Ireland have contracted acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Forty individuals have been diagnosed as HIV antibody positive in Northern Ireland in the last three years, of whom 16 were haemophiliacs. Of the total identified as being HIV antibody positive, three have gone on to develop AIDS, all of whom have died.

  The provision of care for HIV antibody positive patients is a matter for each health and social service boards in light of local circumstances. Anyone wishing to be tested for the HIV virus can make arrangements through their own general medical practitioner or themselves attend the department of genito-urinary medicine at the Royal Victoria hospital or any of the sexually transmitted disease clinics in the province.

  Each individual attending for testing is offered counselling before the test is undertaken and if found HIV antibody positive, again after the tests have been carried out. In addition testing and counselling has been offered to all haemophiliacs in the Province.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Northern Ireland Office and each of the Northern Ireland Departments are setting subject access fees, within the prescribed maximum fee of £10,610
  which are intended to recover the full costs of the subject access service except where circumstances justify a free or subsidised service.

  A total of 55 part A, coupled with 125 part B registrations, have been made.

  The total subject access cost from any one data subject would depend on the number of register entries holding personal data on that individual excluding those accesses which are being supplied free. Fees already set are in the range of £5–£8.

  Social Fund
  Rev. Martin Smyth asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the Social Security Advisory Committee's statement that his decision to proceed with the social fund as planned does not have its support; and what estimates he has as to the number of claimants in Northern Ireland who will lose as a result of the social fund.
  Mr. Needham
  No response has been made and no such estimates are available.

  Speech Therapists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of efforts to upgrade speech therapists' pay.

  Mr. Needham
  The pay of speech therapists in Northern Ireland follows the rates negotiated in Great Britain. I understand that negotiations on a new grading package are in progress in Great Britain. In recognition of the fact that these negotiations are likely to take some time to conclude an interim lump sum of £250 has been agreed for speech therapists in partial compensation for the increase due for the period 1 April 1987 to 30 November 1987.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are in receipt of housing benefit in each of the following areas covered by district offices: Downpatrick, Banbridge, Kilkeel, Newry District I and Newry District 2.

  Mr. Needham
  The following information has been supplied by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Numbers of tenants in receipt of housing benefit (October 1987)

  NIHE district office

  Downpatrick

  3,635

  Banbridge

  2,302

  Kilkeel

  1,095

  Newry District 1

  3,050

  Newry District 2

  2,956

  The numbers relate to NIHE tenants and tenants of private landlords.

  Chiropody
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the chiropody service in (a) the Down unit of management, (b) the Newry and Mourne unit of management and (c) the Banbridge unit of management; and if the Department of Health and Social Services has held any discussions about increasing the work force to deal with the elderly and infirm in the community.
  611
  Mr. Needham
  Chiropody services are provided by health and social services boards for the elderly, handicapped persons, expectant mothers, schoolchildren and diabetics. Access to and frequency of treatment depends on the manpower available to meet demands from patients in these priority groups. Down unit of management has three chiropodists in post, to serve a population of 55,800, Newry and Mourne has six staff for a population of 76,600 and Craigavon and Banbridge 5.4 whole-time equivalent chiropodists for 103,400 people.

  The Department has not been involved in discussions about increases in the work force. Decisions on such matters are taken by boards in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Home Helps
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home helps are employed in the Down unit of management (all), the Newry and Mourne unit of management (County Down only) and the Banbridge unit of management (in the electoral wards of Bannside, Katesbridge, Dromore North, Dromore South, Quilly, Garran and Croob); and how this compares with 1980–81.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Home helps at 30 September

  Unit of Management

  1980

  1987

  Down

  474

  519

  Newry and Mourne1

  982

  1,066

  Craigavon/Banbridge1

  815

  985

  1A breakdown in the form requested is not readily available.

  Local Government Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he proposes to reform local government finance in Ulster; and what proposals he has to introduce a community charge in the Province.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Green Paper of January 1986, "Paying for Local Government", which forms the basis of the Great Britain reforms, made it clear that the proposals did not apply to Northern Ireland. This reflects the fact that local government arrangements in Northern Ireland are significantly different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  My right hon. Friend has therefore decided to monitor the development of the proposals in England and Wales before deciding whether, or to what extent, they should be applied in Northern Ireland.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Mallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes in legislation are planned to enable "I" voters to vote in the next local government election in Northern Ireland; and when he expects such changes to be in operation.

  Mr. Stanley
  The Government intend to introduce a Bill enabling "I" voters to vote in local government elections in Northern Ireland as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what bonus or efficiency payments are payable to managers of health boards; and what are the criteria used in deciding whether or not to grant such payments.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: A performance-related pay scheme for general managers of health and social services boards was introduced in December 1986. The scheme allows for annual additions to pay of up to 4 per cent. subject to a maximum of 20 per cent. cumulatively.

  The criteria for deciding how much, if any, performance-related pay will be awarded are based on a system of individual performance reviews. This system provides for the setting of a number of key objectives for the year ahead against which the performance of the general manager will be assessed by the chairman on behalf of the board.

  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those health boards which (a) provide all acute medical services to their populations; (b) provide such services to populations outside their area and (c) expect other health boards to provide such services for them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: All four health and social services boards provide a full range of acute medical services with the exception of a small number of regional services for example cardiac surgery, renal services, plastic surgery, which by their nature can best be provided primarily at the main teaching hospitals in the Eastern board area.

  In addition certain services because of their highly specialist nature and because of the small numbers involved—for example heart and liver transplants—are provided elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All four boards provide services to population outside their area. The boundaries of areas and units of management are of course for administrative purposes only and are not clinical boundaries; patients and staff can cross them as necessary.

  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of places on each area health board is held by elected representatives.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The information is as follows:

  Health and Social Services Board

  Number of places

  Number of places held by District Councillors

  Per cent.

  Eastern

  34

  4

  12

  Northern

  29

  8

  28

  Southern

  24

  6

  25

  Western

  24

  8

  33

  Approximately 30 per cent. of the places on each board are reserved for nominees of district councils. At present there are nine vacancies in this category.

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

Afghanistan: Blow-Pipe Weapons
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the British public are entitled to know what use is made of armaments exported from this country, and whether and where British personnel are engaged in foreign wars; and whether they will amplify Lord Glenarthur's Written Answer [H.L. Deb, 23rd July 1987, col. 1571] concerning reports of British weapons and instructors assisting fundamentalist counter-revolutionaries in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on 23rd July, it has been the practice of successive administrations not to comment on matters of this kind. But I can confirm that no serving British military personnel are presently engaged in foreign wars.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that slight extension of his previous rather noncommittal Answer. Will he ask his right honourable and learned friend to brief him a little more on the subject? Is he aware that both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State in another place have virtually admitted that British blow-pipe ground-to-air missiles are being supplied to the rebels in Afghanistan? Is he aware that it is known by which company the weapons are made—that is by Short's? Is he aware that the routes by which they arrive in Afghanistan are known? Is he aware that it is a case of almost everybody knowing that these missiles are being supplied to the rebels—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may say three more words—to the rebels—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, let me finish the sentence.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: —to the rebels in Afghanistan except the Minister?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I rest on my earlier remark. Successive administrations have not felt obliged to answer questions of this kind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people described in the Question as "fundamentalist counter-revolutionaries" are in the eyes of many of us patriotic citizens seeking to defend their country against Russian aggression?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must say that I very much agree with my noble friend. It is quite astonishing that anyone should be alarmed or dismayed by the efforts of the Afghan people to defend themselves against the onslaught of a well-equipped and sophisticated modern Soviet army.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there are nearly 120,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, including 10,000 troops of the MVD and the KGB? Will he also confirm that "fundamentalist counter-revolutionaries" is a phrase used by the Soviet Union to describe the Mujahideen?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if the so-called counter-revolutionary fundamentalists had been fighting against the Americans or Her Majesty's Government, is it not almost certain that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, would have described them as freedom fighters?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I move to a slightly more peaceful scene, namely, the United Nations, and ask the noble Lord what attitude Her Majesty's Government will represent there on 9th November when there is to be a debate on Afghanistan? Will Her Majesty's Government be pressing for a negotiated settlement and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the soil of Afghanistan?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government will be represented at the debate on 9th or 10th November. The noble Lord will be aware in due course of what is proposed to be said on that occasion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these terrible events—where people do not decide issues by the ballot box but by slaying and killing—are to be deplored? Will he agree that the proposition that Britain should always help to bring warring sides together is much to be preferred to having our name linked with countries which welcome civil wars so that they can sell the warring sides arms to butcher and kill each other?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are in danger of straying extremely wide of the Question on the Order Paper which is concerned with export of armaments.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one man's terrorist is another man's

779
counter-revolutionary? It is a case of where one stands in the matter. Will he consider this point? Is he aware that we recognise the Government of Afghanistan and that in the circumstances we are apparently supplying weapons to people who are fighting against their government? Is he aware that one cannot address oneself to the fundamentals of the case until the Government admit what they are doing? If they will admit that, we can discuss the question as to whether it is right or wrong.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I return to what I said earlier. Successive administrations have not commented on matters of this kind.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, have we not had enough of this? Can we not pass to the next Question?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

South Africa: Investment
2.39 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of Trade and Industry is encouraging British firms to invest in the South African development of advanced security equipment and in the production of gas in the South African territorial waters of Mossel Bay for conversion into oil sufficient to provide 10 per cent. of South Africa's requirements; and, if so, whether this is consistent with Her Majesty's Government's declarations of abhorrence of apartheid and their consequent bar on new investment in South Africa and on the supply of North Sea oil.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, we continue to abide by the various international commitments on South Africa to which we have agreed. The voluntary ban on new investment provides for various exceptions, as agreed within the European Community.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, what action do Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry actively discourages investment in South Africa and the sale of oil to South Africa indirectly by transfer through ships of other countries?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my department reminds those who seek advice about investing in or taking part in business with South Africa of the voluntary ban. Advice on the precise impact and interpretation of that voluntary ban is offered continually through my department. It would be as well just to remind all in your Lordships' House that under the voluntary ban we allow portfolio investment and reinvestment of existing profits, investment in respect of a normal trading activity,
780
investment with a British partner who contributes skills, services and consultancy, and, most importantly, investment in training, health and social sectors. Within those grounds it has been agreed within the Community that investment in South Africa should take place. Outside those grounds we actively discourage it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord recognise that it is extremely encouraging for us that my noble friend, who is as of yesterday 44 years my senior in age, is still prepared to come to this House to ask Questions on matters such as this on which we feel deeply?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will he understand that the question of trade and investment in South Africa just will not go away and that we shall continue to press the Government to live up to their commitments? In other words, we want action rather than words.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question and how little I agree with the second part. We know our duty and we shall do it without being prodded or reminded.

Energy Efficiency in New Dwellings
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will in part follow the Danish initiative and require a statement on the insulation and efficiency of energy use for all new housing when sold.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand that the Danish scheme imposes a legal requirement on the home owner to provide prospective purchasers with a home energy survey. In the view of Her Majesty's Government this scheme does not provide an appropriate model for the United Kingdom. It involves an unacceptable element of compulsion and its achievements in Denmark have been largely due to a massive programme of government subsidies for the recommended improvements and formerly for the audits themselves. Instead Her Majesty's Government are promoting energy efficiency in new dwellings through the building regulations and in existing dwellings through a range of other measures.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree with me that the building regulations provide a good and useful place for minimum insulation but that if the Government are as keen as they say they are to increase energy efficiency and insulation then it must be up to the private sector to provide even better standards? Is he aware that it will not do so unless the public are interested and become increasingly

781
interested in doing so? What I have suggested is one method of achieving this.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Viscount might find it helpful if I tell him that, so far as concerns the new building regulations, the Department of the Environment hopes to issue draft approved documents for public consultation early next year with a view to laying the new regulations, which will include improved standards of energy efficiency, by the end of the year. These should provide a sound base to build on in the future.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister cast his mind back to previous questions on this subject late in the last parliamentary Session? Does he not agree that we have still a long way to go in achieving a sensible energy saving policy, bearing in mind that among our contemporaries we come out very badly indeed? Is he aware that though we welcome the measures that he has highlighted the biggest area of concern is not new building but existing building? As a matter of urgency will the Government keep the matter under review?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Government have announced plans to phase out the non-means tested 66 per cent. grant under the homes insulation scheme and to extend the more generous 90 per cent. grant to all householders on housing benefit or supplementary benefit. This remains the Government's intention and a further announcement will be made in due course.

Arms Embargo: Iran and Iraq
2.48 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support an embargo on the supply of arms both to Iran and to Iraq.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are committed to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 598 and would support an arms embargo against either Iran or Iraq, or both countries, if they fail to comply.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask what action the Government are taking to ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry actively discourages investment in South Africa—
Noble Lords: Iran and Iraq.
Lord Brockway:—and in particular the sale of oil to South Africa indirectly? I apologise to the House. I withdraw the question which I have just put and ask instead this question. Is it not more likely to end the war if an embargo is imposed on both participants? Is this not especially the case in view of the fact that the Soviet Union is more likely to support it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord suggests is covered by the Answer that I gave, and it very much hinges upon the success of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution No. 598. I stress that we would support an arms embargo against either Iran or Iraq, or against both countries, if they fail to comply with the resolution.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, since the main obstacle to such an embargo appears to be the position on the Security Council of the Soviet Union, the noble Lord might ask his noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney to use up some of his Brownie points at the Kremlin to persuade them to support the arms embargo?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps that is something that my noble friend might exploit privately with the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I be permitted to say on behalf of all of us how delighted we are to see my noble friend in such excellent form on his 99th birthday? Furthermore, may I take the noble Lord a step further than his first Answer to my noble friend when he mentioned his support for an arms embargo? Did the noble Lord mean that he would support a mandatory arms embargo, which is the point that we ought to make now?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that of course depends on others than ourselves; the Soviet Union, for example. So far as we are concerned we already have detailed guidelines which were set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in October 1985. They remain in force and they are rigorously applied, and they will remain in force whether or not there is also a United Nations embargo.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord for a clearer reply. Since the events to which he referred in 1985 there has been United Nations Resolution No. 598. What I am asking is whether Her Majesty's Government at the appropriate moment will support a mandatory arms embargo.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that at the moment we have a Security Council resolution and we await its implementation. If the resolution is not complied with, then we would support an arms embargo. I cannot conceive that that would be anything other than mandatory.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a fact that Iraq is prepared to have a cease-fire agreement and Iran at the moment is not? Therefore, if there is going to be an arms embargo surely it must apply to Iran and not to Iraq?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Iraq, as the noble Lord said, says that she accepts and will implement Security Council Resolution 598 if the Iranians do. What she seeks therefore is implementation of the elements in strict sequence. Iran has neither accepted nor rejected the resolution. It has agreed to discuss

783
implementation with the United Nations Secretary General and wants a cease-fire linked to establishment of a body to investigate the conflict. I think that that spells out the differences.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not a fact that the United Nations Secretary General made absolutely no progress whatsoever during his recent visit to Teheran? In view of that, how much longer are the Government prepared to wait to see whether the Security Council resolution is to be implemented? Would it not be appropriate now for the United Nations Secretary General to take the next step and invite the major arms suppliers to consider a date for an arms embargo in which there would be much better prospects, would there not, of the Soviet Union joining now that she is more ready to take part in UN peace-keeping initiatives?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what is of crucial importance is what each side does and not what it says. Both sides have a legal obligation to implement Security Council Resolution 598, in particular a cease-fire, and to do that immediately.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the statement that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which is important—namely, that Iraq is quite prepared to accept the United Nations Security Council resolution that he mentioned—can the noble Lord confirm or otherwise that statements have recently been issued by the Soviet Union that it too is becoming more amenable to having some form of international force to see that these resolutions are implemented? Not only does it support the resolution, but is it not asking whether we and the Americans will support it in making it a reality?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is returning to a Question that I answered last week. I think he will find that it goes rather wide of a Question on the supply of arms.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that last week the Soviet Union in fact confirmed its readiness to join in a mandatory resolution and in mandatory sanctions, but I am inclined to doubt whether this was due to my influence?

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the four Motions to approve the data protection orders standing in the name of the Earl of Caithness on Thursday 12th November be advanced to Thursday next.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Strabolgi be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Beswick, deceased.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 98 [Criminal injuries]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 171 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 172.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 73, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—

("(i) an offence which is specified in subsection (3) below; or

(ii) an offence which is not so specified but which requires proof of intent to cause death or personal injury or recklessness as to whether death or personal injury is caused; or")

The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I would also speak to Amendments 173, 175 and 183. These amendments bring together in one place the definition of a "violent offence" and remove any implication in the existing wording that the offences specified in subsection (3) are not offences of violence. Amendments Nos. 173, 175 and 183 are consequential drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This amendment turns round the drafting of Clause 98(1) and I would have no objection to it. However, I remain baffled as to why it is thought that the offences in subsection (3) are not offences which require proof of intent to cause death or personal injury or recklessness. One would have thought that that naturally applies to rape or to any offence of causing bodily harm, to arson, to offences which cause personal injury under the Explosive Substances Act and under the Firearms Act, and the same to riot and affray. It seems to me that subsection (3) is completely otiose and unnecessary, but I suppose there is no difficulty in saying everything twice.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The reason why subsection (3) is there is to assist in eliminating uncertainty at the borders of the scheme. The Committee will understand that this is a statutory

785
scheme which will apply on both sides of the Border. I understand that there are certain differences in the way in which our respective criminal law looks at certain crimes and offences. It is for these reasons that it is thought better to make the matter entirely clear—which I am sure the Committee would wish in a scheme of this kind—that this specification is given.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In considering the matter, the Government are taking into account the views expressed by Lord Justice Lawton when he said that the board will be able to recognise a crime of violence when they hear about it, even though it is difficult to provide a definition which is not too narrow or too wide. That is an English lawyer's approach to the matter which has, I should have thought, a great deal of common sense. Once one tries to define a matter too far one then gets into difficulties.
Baroness Phillips: As regards subsection (3), would the noble and learned Lord explain why the Scottish offence of wilful fire-raising does not appear to be an offence in England? Is there a different definition of that offence?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I understand that in England the offence is called "arson". In Scotland we describe it in a slightly less oblique way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 73, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 174 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 175 to 182.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 73, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Any person who deliberately places himself in the path of an approaching train or engine on a railway shall be deemed to commit an offence for the purposes of this Part of this Act only."
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in order to deal with the offence classified in subsection (3)(j). I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 181 to 184. The offence under Section 34 of the Offences Against the Person Act covers almost any action on a railway that endangers anyone in any way. As on Thursday, I should declare an interest as a member of the board. I doubt whether the Government intended the board to cover people who open carriage doors as the train is coming into a platform and causes injury in that way, or somebody who makes a mistake at a level crossing.
As I understand the matter, this subsection is intended to cover the unfortunate practice of people who commit suicide by throwing themselves in front of a train and cause nervous shock to the driver. The Government have undertaken that that situation should be covered, and Amendment No. 174 is intended to deal with it more happily and not to cover anything else.
Amendment No. 181 attempts to put the same idea into words that would be necessary for the framing of subsection (3) if the other list remains. Amendment No. 184 is designed to remove the subsection which, I must say as a Scot, I find extremely difficult. The noble and learned Lord opposite will no doubt consider how a solicitor in Ullapool, or otherwise in Lochbroom, can be expected to know what would be an offence under an Act which applied only to England when advising a client who might have a claim. It seems to me that that could be more happily expressed in words which could be more easily understood by people in Scotland. I beg to move Amendment No. 174.
Lord Denning: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. It is important that such cases should be covered. At the moment it is an offence unlawfully and maliciously to intend to endanger life on the railway. That does not cover the case of suicide. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that in the old days the offence of suicide was the most heinous crime known to our English law. It was a felony for a man to rush unasked into the presence of his maker. He had no Christian burial; his body was staked to the crossroads.
There was a case in respect of the matter when I was at the Bar and it was held by the House sitting judicially that suicide was the most heinous crime known to our English law, as I have said. No one could recover in respect of it. In 1961 Parliament abolished the crime of suicide and attempted suicide and they are no longer offences in English law. However, for the purpose of compensation, ought they not to be covered for victims of a crime of violence? The amendment clearly relates to suicide or attempted suicide. It reads:
"Any person who deliberately places himself in the path of an approaching train or engine on a railway shall be deemed to commit an offence for the purposes of this Part of this Act only'".
Is it not right therefore that the engine driver, in a sudden state of shock, or people in the train, should receive compensation if they are injured by that act of suicide or attempted suicide? I support this small addition which gives rise to the payment of compensation to people who are injured by such acts.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I doubt whether there is any disagreement in principle between the noble Lord opposite and myself as regards what we are attempting to achieve in this part of the Bill. I should like to remind the Committee that the subsection that we are considering was included in the Bill when it was being considered in another place before the end of the last Session in response to an Opposition amendment. It was included because attention had been drawn to the cases of train drivers who had suffered nervous shock when someone committed suicide by throwing themselves in front of a train, or by someone who was trespassing on a track and was knocked down and killed by a train.
I suggest that the problem is not happily solved by the noble Lord's formulation because it would narrow down the clause beyond what was intended, as I believe is now clear from what I have said. It would also open up a debate about cases involving

787
suicide or attempted suicide in a wholly unpredictable and possibly extensive and expensive way.
I accept, as is important to bear in mind, that there is some measure of restriction in the provisions particularly of Clause 99(8) which specifies certain conditions which must be met before such cases can arise. Subsection (9) specifies condition so far as qualifying injury. The problem being that which I have set out, and the fact that the present amendment would be insufficient, it was thought that what was proposed would be satisfactory at least to deal with the instances with which Parliament was concerned to deal.
As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, the problem in Scotland is that there is no readily identifiable Scottish equivalent to Section 34 of the 1861 Act. I accept that there may be problems for Scottish solicitors. There are none in Ullapool but I accept that Scottish solicitors elsewhere might find difficulty. However, this is a scheme which will become generally well known. I should not have thought that the difficulty was in itself sufficient to preclude this method of getting round our problem of drafting.
It is important—as the noble Lord's amendments recognise—to ensure that the position in Scotland is the same as it is in England and Wales. It seems to us that at present the only practical method of achieving that, however inelegant it may appear, is by the formula in subsection (5). However, since we are at one in what we are seeking to secure, I should be happy to undertake to draw the difficulty to which the noble Lord opposite has alluded in his amendment to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs in order that the matter can be reconsidered in the light of this debate. I cannot promise that necessarily we shall find a better answer.
It would perhaps be difficult to use a word such as "suicide", at least in the context of suicide being a crime as it was known in the law of England, for the simple reason that in the law of Scotland I do not think that suicide has ever been a crime, at least not for some centuries. Therefore, while I cannot accept the present amendment, I certainly should be happy to consider whether this matter can be resolved in a slightly more elegant way than is presently secured.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It was good to hear the noble and learned Lord indicate that he thought that this matter called for further consideration. For my part, I should like to invite him to focus upon Amendment No. 181. The Bill seeks to deal with the situation as it was revealed in the Warner case; namely that train drivers who suffered nervous shock as a result of witnessing suicides on the line could not be compensated because, although the suicide has committed an offence under Section 34 of the 1861 Act, that offence did not constitute a crime of violence.
We welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to bring cases of that type within the Act by including the
788
relevant offence among those which Clause 98(3) specifically lists as entitling the victims to compensation. Indeed we urged that in another place. However, I invite the Minister in his considerations to bear in mind two essential points.
I question whether the Government have not gone rather too far in one regard and left a loophole in another. Section 34 of the 1861 Act is not confined to railway suicides. In a paraphrased version of the words of the section, it catches anyone whose unlawful act, or wilful omission, or neglect, endangers the safety of any person conveyed or who is in or upon the railway. The world "wilful", as is well established in law, connotes only that the act or omission is intentional. This provision means that any negligent act or omission, so long as it is performed intentionally, will probably amount to an offence under that section if it is such as to endanger the safety of persons on the railway.
Let us take the example of a man who puts his heavy suitcase on the luggage rack. The suitcase is too big for the rack and falls off when the train starts, injuring another passenger. An offence under Section 34 has probably been committed and in the present circumstances it matters not that no prosecution would be brought in such circumstances. The point is that as the Bill stands the injured passenger will be able to obtain compensation from the board. The effect is to give victims of negligence a specially privileged position if they happen to be railway passengers.
Of course, it is high time that we had a state system of compensation for accident victims, as was recommended long ago by the Pearson Commission. But this scheme relates to injuries resulting from crimes of violence. The railway suicide is a special case. The special case should be tightly defined and should not bring in quite unrelated situations.
Amendment No. 181 sets out what it is that a railway suicide does and makes that action a qualifying offence for the purposes of the Act. That is my principal reason for commending it. However, the amendment also has the important advantage of forestalling any possible argument that the suicide did not endanger any other person and therefore no offence was committed under the 1861 Act. For example, it might be argued that no one else has been endangered if the suicide has merely stepped in front of one of the new high speed trains. It is appreciated by the noble and learned Lord that without danger to others there will be no offence under the 1861 Act.
Since the Government are committed to bringing such cases into the scheme for the benefit of train drivers, I suggest that they do so clearly and without leaving any possible loopholes. If accepted, Amendment No. 181 means that there will be no need for subsection (5) to create a kind of Scottish equivalent of the Section 34 offence. As I understand it, that is why the effect of Amendment No. 181 is to delete that subsection. It is also independently beneficial because it would avoid the need for Scottish members of the board to apply English statute and case law with which they are not familiar. For those reasons, in addition to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna,

789
I urge the noble and learned Lord to consider with care the particular merit of Amendment No. 181.
Lord Grimond: Before we pass from this amendment, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate be good enough to clarify one matter which may be perfectly clear to lawyers but which I do not entirely understand? At my local railway station the porter has twice been involved in the very unpleasant aftermath of suicides who threw themselves from the platform in the way of an oncoming train. During the discussion of this amendment reference has been made almost exclusively to engine drivers; indeed, I think it is written into one of the clauses that he has to be present at the act complained of. I suggest that the case of a porter who has to deal with the aftermath of suicide is serious. Certainly, the porter I have mentioned suffered severe shock and required medical treatment, though I do not know for how long.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken further on this matter. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the amendment as I indicated does not quite cover all the cases that were intended to be covered with regard to train drivers. To the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, I can say that the purpose of the scheme is to deal with crimes of violence to the individual and not, unfortunately, however it may be seen, to deal with those who may subsequently come upon the scene to deal with the aftermath. Such people may be firemen, ambulance-men and the like. They do not come within the terms of the scheme.
I am grateful to those who have spoken and, as I have said, I shall take these matters to my right honourable friend. In the Bill as it stands we have sought to meet a very genuine concern. The Committee has pointed out the problems that can arise, but for the reason that I have indicated I cannot accept this amendment. I invite the noble Lord opposite to withdraw it on the undertaking that I have given.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to make one observation. Although we support the amendment moved so well by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, it seems to some of us that it is a little clumsy to have criminal provisions that one does not mean to be criminal provisions at all. It is not the way that Parliament normally legislates.
The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say that the whole matter would be reconsidered. With his right honourable and learned friend, will he at least consider the possibility of including some provision for an order which would add to those matters that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board could consider and where indeed compensation could be awarded? From time to time we might well think of circumstances which properly come within that, and it seems tidier to do it by order empowering the board to deal with matters of that kind.
Lord Morton of Shuna: We have had an interesting and rather longer dicussion on this than I had thought was intended. I am very grateful for the support that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I am disappointed that the noble and learned Lord opposite did not seem to take the point that part of the intention of this amendment was to restrict the cases to certain types of event. I was also disappointed that he said that "suicide" should not be used in Scotland. I agree it should not be used in Scotland. It is not used in this amendment at all anyway. In these circumstances, in the hope that we can come to a satisfactory definition, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 73, line 22, leave out ("(ii)") and insert ("(i)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this on Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 176.
Page 73, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to speak to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 178 and 180. This is the list of offences. I speak with all the deference that is due from a Scottish lawyer speaking about English offences. We now have an offence—and this is in Amendment No. 171 that we have just accepted—which requires proof of intent to cause death or personal injury or recklessness as to whether death or personal injury is caused. Why do we require in the Bill to have what will be by the next amendment an offence under Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act? I should have thought, with my simplistic approach, that an assault is clearly already included under the definition of an offence causing death or personal injury and, therefore, that one does not need either paragraph (b), as it now is, or the reference to Section 47.
If we go on to Amendment No. 178, that is to leave out paragraph (e), an offence under the Explosive Substances Act. If the explosion actually takes place and somebody is injured, there is no doubt whatever that that is within the definition and it is unnecessary to have the reference. I cannot for the life of me see how, under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, there can be a personal injury which arises out of attempting to cause an explosion which, on the face of it, did not cause the explosion, or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life, which again entails that that has not yet happened.
Then one moves on to my Amendment No. 180, which raises an even more difficult problem, because the reference to the Firearms Act and the various sections would add into the band in which compensation has to be paid—maybe it should be, maybe it should not; but it certainly makes it interesting—airgun offences. This is the sort of situation where children are playing either as trespassers or in a public place with airguns, shooting at tin cans, and one of them gets hit. That is,

791
depending on where it happens, Section 19 or Section 20. It also covers, or could cover, certainly purely accidental injuries occurring. It seems to offend against the general intent of this part of the Bill that we are dealing with, which is that it should be intentional or reckless causing of injury, not accidental. For the life of me I cannot see what is achieved by adding in the references to these Acts, because they are in the normal situation crimes of violence anyway. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I indicated earlier that it was thought proper to make clear where difficulties were perceived on the margins of the general description of conduct which would fall within the terms of the scheme. I will deal first with Amendment No. 180. It is an offence to carry a firearm. That is part of our criminal law. The question arises as to whether there should be compensation for personal injury which is caused by any conduct which would fall within the terms of paragraph (f). No difficulty surely can arise with regard to the possession of a firearm with intent to injure. No difficulty surely can arise with regard to use of a firearm to resist arrest. No difficulty surely can arise with regard to a personal injury arising from carrying a firearm with criminal intent or carrying a firearm in a public place, or trespassing with a firearm. It seems to me perfectly appropriate that we make it plain within the terms of this clause what are the circumstances in which a criminal injury arises.
So far as Amendment No. 178 is concerned, I think it only fair to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there is an amendment down in my noble friend's name which makes it clear that we are dealing here with the matter of an assault. So far as concerns the first matter—an offence of causing actual bodily harm to a person—it may be said that that does not necessarily come within the general description in subsection (1) as that is now amended. To make the matter entirely clear, it is thought appropriate to include that offence—one, I am bound to say, I should be more familiar with if I were an English rather than a Scots lawyer. Having said that, it merely makes clear why the matter should be made plain within the Bill itself.
With every due respect to the noble Lord's argument, these are entirely proper attempts to make the margins of this scheme clear so that there can be no difficulty for those who properly could come forward to the board and seek compensation for a criminal injury. I therefore regret that I cannot advise the Committee to accept these amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, because it does appear to me that he has not answered the point, especially about firearms, which I was endeavouring to make. I will try to put it again very simply.
Section 19 covers carrying a firearm in a public place. Section 20 covers carrying a firearm while trespassing. Both of them include airguns. Children regularly injure themselves playing games with airguns, and they cause the board considerable
792
difficulty as to whether an offence has been committed or not. What this Bill is doing is to add to these difficulties by saying that if the child who fires the airgun—and it usually is a child—is trespassing, there is liability; but if he happens to be somewhere with permission, say in a garden or in grounds, no offence is committed at all. Surely the Government do not intend such a bizarre approach to be taken. That is the difficulty which does not appear to be met. We are meeting certain classes of airgun accident. The others do not really cause any problem. However, we are leaving out other things which cause injury such as crossbows and bows and arrows. They are left out altogether. It is only the trespassing airgun, so to speak, or the public place airgun, which is covered. Private places, such as a garden, or somebody's estate or farm land where they are entitled to be, are completely uncovered. There is a difficulty which the noble and learned Lord might take on board and consider, but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 73, line 24, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) an offence under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm:")
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I would also speak to Amendents Nos. 179 and 182. Amendment No. 179 is to define more precisely the offence of assault, which is covered by the scheme, and it removes the possibility that the present wording might be taken to include accidental injuries which would not entitle a person to compensation under the present scheme. The amendment to the reference to the Explosive Substances Act 1883 limits the application of the Bill to those sections of the Act containing offences which may give rise to injuries that would qualify a person to make application under the scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 73, line 27, after ("under") insert ("section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property) or 3 (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property) of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have just spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 177. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Would the noble and learned Lord again consider, since we have had a long discussion now about the type of matters which should be covered by compensation, whether instead of trying to do a very difficult thing—namely, to include all these matters within this Bill—it would be wiser to have a general provision that by order the type of matters that can be covered by the board in giving compensation should be placed before Parliament

793
with an affirmative resolution? We would then be able, as I say, to list from time to time matters that would occur to all of us as being proper matters for compensation, without having this rather difficult task before us now of seeing whether we have included things in a way which is satisfactory to the Committee.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think I undertook in regard to the 1861 Act to draw the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Obviously I shall do likewise with regard to what the noble Lord has said. We must try to get the matter absolutely right. I accept that and I am not suggesting that our formulation is necessarily ideal. This is one of the reasons why Committee debates of this kind are so helpful. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that the Government's mind is closed on the matter. However, I think I have indicated the difficulties that we see in the amendments with which we are dealing.
Lord Morton of Shuna: There is a basic attraction in having the scheme set out in an order. But the difficulty about that, if I understand the procedure of your Lordships' House correctly, is that there will be no opportunity to amend the order or to persuade the Government to put in amendments. This sort of discussion would therefore be impossible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 73, line 37, leave out from ("in") to end of line 38 and insert ("this subsection").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 73, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: Again this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 [Qualifying injuries]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 74, line 23, at end insert ("and references in this Part of this Act to an injury sustained in Scotland include references to an injury sustained, on, under or above any such waters as are mentioned in paragraph (e) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to provide that the various references in the Bill to an injury sustained in Scotland are covered by the geographical definition of qualifying injury in Clause 99. Perhaps I might mention a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, raised on the last day in Committee about
794
the Sumburgh air disaster. I think that this would cover that disaster in regard to the fact that it occurred above Scottish waters and was in a British hovercraft as that is defined in Clause 99(2). But I cannot say that that was the reason for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I accept that this amendment goes some way. However, if one adds it as printed at the end of line 23 it becomes part of paragraph (e), which seems to be wrong. I should have thought it should be either paragraph (f) or a proviso or something else. Also it does not appear to cover the problem about the ships and whether a ship is to be regarded as Scottish, English or Welsh. That can make a crucial difference to the assessment of damages, especially if the assault takes place outside territorial waters.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think that the noble Lord has raised a point which I answered in Committee earlier. But so far as his first point is concerned, this is a matter of how it will look when the Bill is finally reprinted. I think he will therefore be satisfied that we can look at it again then.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 75, line 2, leave out ("95") and insert ("98").
The noble Lord said: I have to speak to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 190,194 and 206. For some reason all the references to what should be Clause 98 are printed as Clause 95. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 75, line 22, leave out ("so").
The noble Lord said: This amendment goes with Amendment No. 188. The difficulty I have is that if one looks at sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) half-way down page 75, one gets the astonishing assertion:
"if the person injured has not so ceased to live, that circumstances prevent him from doing so",
which is not the happiest phrase in any statute. One can work out eventually what it is intended to mean, but I am trying to make the meaning clearer. I emphasise that a lot of the applicants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are individual. They do not get advice from lawyers or anyone else. They are supposed to understand what we are providing for them. It is just to make the meaning clear that these two amendments are moved. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am aware of the purpose of this amendment. It might be described as an attempt to improve the elegance of the wording of the present sub-paragraph. I take the point that perhaps we ought to look to see whether we can improve sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b). The intention is that it will take into account the circumstances which are referred to in the first sub-paragraph; namely, that there may be only one person, or more than one person, responsible for causing the injury. These amendments would not

795
deal with the latter question. Equally the question of whether a claimant intends to resume cohabitation with the perpetrator in the future, the question that the person injured has not so ceased to live in the same household, would also require the claimant to satisfy the board that he or she, in intending to move out, was not intending to live again with the person or persons responsible for the injury. This is not an easy way.
I think the draftsman thought that the way in which he secured the objective, which I think is common to both the noble Lord and myself, is an elegant solution. It is apparent that the noble Lord does not think so. I shall go back and ask the draftsman whether there is a better way. It may be that at the end of the day it will more verbose. We have all sought to cut down the wording but if it makes matters plain I should be happy to secure that result. Perhaps with that undertaking the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: With that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 189 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 190 or 191.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 75, line 24, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: At this point I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 189 and 191 because they are really two ways of dealing with the same circumstance. Subsection (6) deals with the situation where a person sustains an injury when he is attempting to prevent an offence or apprehend someone or is assisting a constable who is so doing. As it stands at the moment in this subsection he is only required to satisfy the board that he was taking an exceptional risk. That may be so, for example, if a police officer were minded to run across the M25 during the rush hour to try to stop someone committing an offence against the Litter Act. But that is the point of Amendment No. 191. The risk must be a justifiable one, which is what is provided in the scheme at the moment.
Amendment No. 189 goes back to the position of some years ago where there was no such provision at all—neither the exceptional risk nor the risk that is justifiable in the circumstances. What this provision does not cover is the situation of a perfectly innocent person who is knocked down and injured by a store detective, a constable or someone else who is rushing after a thief.
An example of such a case is the Schofield case in 1971. That case went to the Court of Appeal and as a result the Government changed the scheme to remove that kind of injury from it. It may well be that the Committee will consider that that kind of injury should be included; that is, the injury that is sustained by an innocent person who is knocked down by
796
someone trying to arrest an offender or trying to stop an offence. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 189.
If, however, it is not intended to cover that kind of innocent victim, in my view it would be necessary to qualify the provision in the way that the present scheme qualifies it by saying that the risk must be a justifiable one in the circumstances. That provision is contained in Amendment No. 191. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to give very careful attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said. I wish to draw upon a strange experience that I once had in order to support the case.
One night I saw a police officer apparently trying to arrest two men who were smaller than himself. He was a big uniformed police officer and the two men were of about my own stature. I approached the scene and I got hold of the man on the outside, as the police officer had both men on his right-hand side. I had of course made a serious mistake of fact because one of the people who looked like a rough was trying to help the police officer. That man thought that I had come to rescue the other rough.
He gave me a jolly big thump on the outside of the ribs. If I had been seriously enough injured to make a claim before the previous non-statutory board or, in the course of time before the proposed statutory board, it would have been very hard on me if my claim had been defeated by my having to make a calculation as to whether I was taking an exceptional risk. Therefore I consider that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is on to a good point.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We are of course discussing Clause 98(1)(b), which brings within the scope of the scheme injuries sustained accidentally but in the course of attempting to prevent an offence or to apprehend the offender. On page 75 of the Bill Clause 99(6) takes such injuries out of the scheme again unless the risk which the victim was taking
"was an exceptional risk for him to take".
I find this a very obscure piece of drafting. I suppose that it probably means that the scheme is not to be concerned with people such as policemen and security officers for whom preventing offences and apprehending suspects is part of the daily routine. If so it would perhaps be better to have a reference to the normal course of employment. But perhaps I am entirely wrong about that and that is not the point. Perhaps the question is whether it was exceptional for the character of the individual in question to take the risk. So the bold type who would think nothing of having a go would be excluded because his public spirited action is nothing exceptional for him, but his more timorous neighbour who plucks up courage and commits the same action would get compensation if injured. That situation would obviously be very odd indeed. As I have said, it may be that that is not what is meant at all. However, it is not clear whether "exceptional" intends to have regard to personal qualities or occupational position.

797
I invite the noble and learned Lord to explain and tell us what is intended by "exceptional". I can imagine all kinds of other difficulties of interpretation arising from this subsection. On the footing that it refers to employment does "exceptional" mean not part of the job or very infrequent in practice? If it is the latter does that mean that a superintendent of police who happens to get involved in an incident could claim but the man on the beat could not? Does "the risk" mean the risk that is actually perceived in advance by the victim or the risk which hindsight shows objectively to have existed?
I invite the Lord Advocate to consider the case of a police car which is in hot pursuit of an offender trying to make his escape. The car goes out of control and injures a passer-by. Prima facie the passer-by has sustained an injury caused by the attempted apprehension of an offender and would be entitled to compensation by virtue of Clause 98(1)(b) but he must satisfy the board that the risk that he, the passer-by, was taking was exceptional. But how on earth is the notion of taking a risk to be applied in that context? It simply cannot be applied. It does not arise.
In any event why exclude professionals who are concerned with law and order where the injury is accidental but not where it is deliberately inflicted so that it falls within Clause 98(1)(a)? Let us take this example. A robber deliberately assaults a security guard. That falls within Clause 98(1)(a) so the guard can be compensated although he was doing nothing whatever that was exceptional at the time. But if the guard chases a robber from the scene of a wages snatch, runs into the path of a car and is hurt, the subsection that we are discussing may deprive him of compensation on the grounds that what he is doing is not undertaking an exceptional risk for him, although a mere passer-by who chased the robber and met the identical misfortune would recover. Is that really what is intended? For my part I find this very obscure and very unsatisfactory. That is why I support Amendment No. 189, which would delete subsection (6).
I hope that we shall hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate say that he will take the time to consider those various points. For my part, I should not be minded to move Amendment No. 191 because I regard the provision in its present form and structure as being beyond redemption.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps I may first say that the exceptional risk part of the sub-paragraph has been part of the non-statutory scheme since a report published by an interdepartmental working party in 1978. I have heard nothing to suggest that the board has had substantial difficulty in dealing with the matter. However, I should like to explain that the reason for the introduction of the question of exceptional risk was that the working party felt that while accidental injury was deserving of public sympathy, it was questionable whether compenation from public funds for all injuries incurred by accident was a proper purpose of a scheme designed to compensate the victims of violent crime.
798
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, gave me what I rather thought was viva voce in this matter. With due deference to him, I should have thought that his bystander would not fall within the reasonable meaning of personal injury, as set out in Clause 98,
"caused by…the apprehension or attempted apprehension of an offender or suspected offender".
However, I recognise that no two lawyers necessarily have the same view about the meaning of a statute. That is why we have judges.
The case which brought the question of injuries inflicted in circumstances of accidents within the scope was the earlier case of Ince in 1973. Until then, those kinds of cases had been excluded. The Court of Appeal took a different view and as a result compensation was likely to be payable, for example, not only to a police officer injured at the scene of a crime while taking active steps to prevent its commission but also to any officer who believed that an offence was about to take place and was accidentally injured in taking some action to prevent it.
In the case of an attempt to arrest, any injury accidentally sustained from the time that the police officer received instructions and responded to them might have been within the scope of the scheme. Such a situation would have required the scheme to provide compensation to a police officer who walked into a lamp post while proceeding to the scene of a reported incident.
Those are perhaps ways in which one can demonstrate how far one is getting from the purpose of a scheme designed to compensate the victims of violent crime. It was for that reason that the working party report of 1978 recommended the inclusion in the scheme that compensation for accidental injury in the circumstances set out in Clause 98 should be payable only where a person takes an exceptional risk which is justified in all the circumstances.
That leads me to Amendment No. 191 which seeks to restore to the statutory scheme as proposed the justified risk element of the exceptional risk test which the board must consider in the case of accidental injury. In the non-statutory scheme the justified limb of the test is intended to avoid giving compensation to a person whose actions, though laudable in having the objective of preventing crime or arresting an offender, was such that he was liable to incur injury with no appreciable prospect of achieving the desired result. If, on the other hand, the desired result is the prevention of a trivial offence, then the action would be less justifiable than if a serious offence is in prospect or is being committed.
On consideration, we feel that the need for the subsidiary test for accidental injury is an unnecessary further qualification for the board to consider. It imports a large element of subjectivity into the board's consideration of actions undertaken on the spur of the moment. Its absence from the provisions of the statutory scheme would, we suggest, assist rather than hamper the board's consideration of an application that falls under subsection (6) of Clause 99 In one sense, it may therefore be said to go wider than Amendment No. 191.

799
With regard to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said, I take the point that if he had been able to identify the real culprit and had received a blow from him, he might well have brought himself within the terms of the scheme. I recognise that there are always certain difficulties on the margins. But at the end of the day, I should have thought that some form of certainty is better to secure the result which we want in a statutory scheme. The exceptional risk clause has been with us since 1978. As I say, I am not aware that it causes any undue difficulty in separating the purely accidental from those cases in which it may well he appropriate to award compensation.
We have not gone so far as the present non-statutory scheme because we have taken away the justifiable element which is superadded to the exceptional risk and therefore, I suggest, given the board a greater discretion than they have at present. Again, that seems to me to be a laudable objective. For those reasons (which I have explained as well as I can to the Committee) we cannot accept either amendment.
Lord Renton: I have listened carefully to my noble and learned friend. However, I wish to ask him to consider the matter further. The fact that the provision was in the non-statutory scheme and that the Government are proposing to relax it somewhat to give the board a wider discretion does not get over the difficulty that people who try to help the police to make arrests should not be penalised by having the burden of arguing a case which may depend upon a very fine distinction.
I should have thought that if we are making the criminal injuries compensation scheme statutory, we should try to avoid fine distinctions and aim at the justice of each case within the discretion of the board. The board is bound to have to use its common sense, in any case. I am very disappointed to find that my noble and learned friend is not prepared so far to consider this matter further. I urge him to take it away and think about it. There are many difficulties in retaining the provision in the Bill as it is at the moment.
Lord Grimond: I feel that the series of amendments deserves support. I find it puzzling to see how the board has managed up to now to deal with those matters. One often sees in the press that the public is warned against attempting to interfere with dangerous criminals. I take it that if one interferes in a case in which a dangerous criminal is involved in spite of that warning, as that is obviously an exceptional risk one will get compensation for injury. However, if one merely attempts to assist the police in the normal run of their duties—which would seem a wholly reasonable thing to do—and if one is seriously injured, then because the risk was not obviously exceptional, one might receive no compensation. I must say that—
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? I believe that he should bear in mind that it is not only a police officer's duty but, if an
800
arrestable offence is being committed, it is also the citizen's duty.
Lord Grimond: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who speaks with great authority on those matters. He is unquestionably right. I must confess that as the matter stands at present, it seems to me to be totally anomalous. I should have thought that it is a matter which the Government should take away and reconsider.
4 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very grateful for the support that I have had from noble Lords and especially from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the Government do not consider that this clause in the scheme would cause difficulty then the members of the board, of whom I am one, have not managed to get our point across. It causes tremendous difficulty as to what is to be exceptional, for one thing, on the points mentioned by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg; but what is unfortunate in my view, is that we have not dealt at all with the situation of the bystander. The noble and learned Lord has not dealt with that.
Perhaps I can illustrate this by citing the case of Ince, to which he referred. That case concerned a police car which was travelling with siren blaring in response to a burgular alarm and had a road accident when it went through a red light. Mr. Ince's widow was in the end compensated. However, if such a car in such a situation had knocked down an innocent pedestrian who was standing waiting for the lights to change so that he could cross the road, that person would not be within the scheme at all at the moment. That is what I am querying. Such a person would be accidentally injured—a person not taking any risk, but just waiting for the green signal to appear. Yet it is quite clearly an injury caused by a crime or an attempted crime.
It is very satisfactory that we have changed the wording from "directly attributable" to "caused" and that gets us away from the argument on causation and into the normal civil law. However, I would suggest very strongly that this is a matter which requires cosideration, for the reasons I have endeavoured to put and which have been put very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope the noble and learned Lord will listen—I am sure he will—to the points that have been made in this short debate, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In a number of cases, as he will be aware, chief officers of police in England and Wales (and so far as I know in Scotland as well) have asked for the assistance of members of the public to help the police when they are involved in an episode of the kind which has been described. I think it would cause widespread concern were they to believe that people who were injured as a result of attempting to assist the police were not to receive the degree of assistance which I think most of us believe they should receive.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I detect from the views that the Committee have placed fairly forcefully before me that there appear to be two elements. The first concerns those who actually assist or may themselves, as civilians, attempt to assist in the apprehension or attempted apprehension or in the prevention or attempted prevention of an offence. The other element concerns the bystander, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, referred.
So far as the latter is concerned, I have to say that I have made the Government's position clear. On the former, obviously I shall place the views before my right honourable friend. However, I must make it clear that those are matters which were carefully considered because it was not thought proper to go beyond the scheme as it now exists except with the limited qualification to which I alluded when replying to the second amendment in regard to "justifiable". That is a relaxation, as I think the Committee will recognise, in the existing test. Certainly the purpose of the Committee is to allow views to be expressed, and I shall certainly see that these are transmitted to my right honourable friend.
Lord Renton: That is very satisfactory. I hope that when my right honourable friend considers this further he really will give much thought to leaving out subsection (6) altogether. That is by far the best solution.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 75, line 25, leave out ("95") and insert ("98").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 190. That involves changing the figures in line 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 193 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 194.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 75, line 37, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to leave out subsections (8) and (9). The purpose of these subsections is apparently to define and qualify injuries by shock: otherwise the board is to assess damages, broadly speaking, in the same way as a civil court would assess damages. But when concerned with damages caused by shock, it is to limit it. Where a criminal injury is caused by shock it is only a qualified injury if the person who sustained it did so by virtue of being present when the conduct mentioned was engaged in and was at the time put in fear of immediate physical injury to himself or another.
That is a complete denial of the civil law, as laid down in the recent case of Mc Loughlin v. O'Brian, where a mother suffered nervous shock in situations
802
where she had not been present at the accident but just saw in one case a dead child. I suggest that it is proper that the board, in assessing damages, should do so as far as possible in exactly the same way as a civil court does and that the law should not be confined by an Act of Parliament on this matter but should be allowed to develop, as the common law does, in the other way.
Subsection (9) is also difficult. It says:
"(9) Where any criminal injury caused by shock consists of harm to a person's mental condition, it is only a qualifying injury if it amounts to a psychiatric illness".
I would ask: what definition of a psychiatric illness does the Bill give us? The answer is "none". How are we to know what a psychiatric illness is, and how does somebody know whether or not they are suffering from such an illness? Is an illness such as that suffered by Mrs. McLoughlin a psychiatric illness or not?
In the McLoughlin case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, drew a distinction between the inability to recover damages at common law for grief and sorrow, and went on:
"… a claim for damages for 'nervous shock' caused by negligence can be made without the necessity of showing direct impact or fear of immediate personal injuries for oneself".
That is my understanding of what the common law is; and that is what it should be. It is quite impossible to define it in the way that is suggested and also to define it by way of an undefined category of psychiatric illness.
It appears that the Government, having made the concession concerning what may be referred to in "shorthand" as railway suicides by saying, "Yes, we will leave them in: they will be in Clause 98(3)(j)", then take it away again. Of course what happens is that the driver is coming along and he is not at the time in fear of immediate physical injury. If one imagines a driver bringing an Underground train into a platform and somebody throws himself in front of the train, the driver is not in fear of immediate physical injury: he is going to suffer nervous shock because somebody has committed suicide in front of his train. I would ask the Committee to consider very seriously whether these subsections, rather than adding anything, do not detract very seriously from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: May I say a word in favour of this amendment? One of the biggest difficulties in our civil law over the past 50 years has been whether damages are available and are given for nervous shock caused by negligence. As my noble friend has said, the House of Lords has explained it as being quite worrying, and damages can be given in respect of nervous shock even though the person was not present at the time and even though the negligence did not cause a psychiatric illness. It seems to me that it would be much better to get our ordinary civil law about shock in cases of negligence into line in the same way as in the cases of criminal injuries caused by shock. It can be done quite well by omitting these two sub-paragraphs.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I too support this amendment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has

803
just pointed out, subsection (8)(a) provides that the victim must be present when the offence is committed or the attempted apprehension or prevention takes place. I suggest that is both wrong in principle and not very well thought through.
It is wrong in principle because there must be many cases where the chain of causation and the criminal conduct is clear yet the victim is not present at the scene. For example, suppose a mother sees her child shot by a gunman. If she suffers the requisite harm she will qualify, but if she is some way off when she hears the shot, comes to investigate and finds the child dying, then no amount of psychological harm suffered by her will give the board jurisdiction to award her a penny piece in compensation. I can see no justice in that.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, observed, it is long established in the common law of tort that actual presence on the scene is unnecessary. I do not see why it should be necessary in this scheme. Paragraph (a) will also exclude that which is surely not the intention of the Bill to exclude. I should have thought it would not have been the intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to exclude it.
Suppose a terrorist plants a bomb which later explodes causing death or injury to some and nervous shock to others. This would not be nervous shock, which qualifies for compensation, because Clause 99(8)(a) says that the victim must have sustained the injury by virtue of being present when the criminal conduct or activity is being engaged in. There can be no compensation because the drafting focuses upon the conduct which constitutes the offence; the conduct here was planting the bomb and that conduct came to an end before the victims were present. On any view of it that just does not seem to be right or sensible.
Subsection (8)(b) requires fear of immediate physical injury to the victim himself or to another. Again this appears to me to be something which the common law certainly would not insist upon.
In one well-known Court of Appeal case a mother had her back turned when she was on one side of the road and a car struck her husband and children on the other. Obviously she never feared for anyone and by the time she knew what had happened the danger had been superseded by physical harm of a fearful kind. That surely should not exclude her from compensation. Again the present drafting does just that.
I should now like to add a few observations of my own to the requirement under subsection (9) that to qualify the harm to the person's mental condition must amount to a psychiatric illness. A case to which this provision might apply would be where a parent witnesses the murder of a child or a husband the rape of his wife and at the time is put in fear of immediate physical injury to himself or to another. The operative words would be "to another". But it cannot be right that before compensation can be awarded the mental harm which the parent or husband in either of these cases suffers must extend to a psychiatric illness.
804
As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, points out, the Bill does not define psychiatric illness. I doubt whether anyone would be bold enough to attempt a definition. The condition of a person of robust constitution might not degenerate into something which psychiatrists agree constituted a psychiatric illness. Yet that person could suffer for very many months from acute anxiety, depression, apathy or a group of these symptoms. All of these are well recognised psychiatric symptoms going well beyond mere distress of mind, grief or suffering.
I think I have been able to work out for myself what the origin of this provision is and it is misconceived. In McLoughlin v. O'Brian, which has been referred to, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, said in this Chamber:
"The first hurdle which a Plaintiff claiming damages (for nervous shock) must surmount is to establish that he is suffering not merely grief, distress or any other normal emotion, but a positive psychiatric illness".
That was taken up by the interdepartmental working party at paragraph 4.12 and I have no doubt it is the foundation of the provision that we see in this Bill. I have no doubt at all that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, did not intend his remarks in that case to be translated into statute. What he was contrasting was the ordinary human emotions of grief and distress with psychiatrically recognised symptoms such as anxiety, depression and apathy. He was excluding the ordinary human emotions of grief and distress from nervous shock as a ground for compensation.
I have had the advantage of a discussion on this subject with a most eminent psychiatrist. He tells me that this is the point. It is possible to suffer from these symptoms without developing a positive psychiatric illness. This provision is an insufficiently considered lifting or borrowing from the words of the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as strongly as I may that this provision should be thought through again.
Plainly, acute depression, anxiety and apathy, or a group of these symptoms, falling short of what psychiatrists would agree constitutes a definitive psychiatric illness should be subject to compensation. The prospect of the board having to evaluate and choose between one expert's report saying that the condition had, and another expert's report saying that it had not, reached the stage of a definitive psychiatric illness must be as unwelcome to the board as to anyone who has had to try to give precision to these elusive concepts in a practical context.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that a specific case which has been quite deliberately brought within this legislation is that which we have already discussed; that is, the case of the train driver who suffers shock from a suicide on a railway track when he runs over and kills someone who has deliberately put himself in front of his train. That case is quite deliberately brought in by including it in the list of Section 98 offences. The Committee will recall, because we have referred to it already, that the Court of Appeal held in the Warner case in 1986 that a railway suicide was not a crime of violence, hence psychological injury suffered as a result was not subject to compensation under the scheme.

805
These cases are all too common. There are a lot of them. In 1981, 219 people committed suicide by throwing themselves in front of trains and another 36 were seriously injured while trying to commit suicide in this way. The figure of deaths in 1985 became as high as 390. Members of the Committee will know that there was a great outcry about this class of case. The Government, to their credit, have expressly brought this class of case within the legislation. In these cases drivers may be off work suffering from shock for a considerable number of weeks and it is very unpleasant. But they do not reach the stage of a definitive psychiatric illness. If subsection (9) is not removed, then I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, because what they have ostensibly been given by one provision has been taken away by another. There will be simply a renewal of the outcry which there was about this class of case if such a driver is denied compensation because his condition has not reached the stage of a definitive psychiatric illness.
The short answer to these problems is that the board should be left to adjudicate, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, on the shock causing mental harm cases uninhibited by fancy notions of psychiatric illness. It is directed by Schedule 6 paragraph 5(3) to assess compensation in accordance with the general law of damages. To do that will prove sufficient boundaries for nervous shock claims without trying to map out the boundaries on a couple of tablets of stone which cannot possibly cater for every eventuality.
I trust that this amendment may find favour with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate or at the very lowest that he will take it away for serious consideration. I respectfully suggest that many of the points made are of real substance.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: I have the greatest difficulty in accepting one leg of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He expressed dissatisfaction with the drafting of subsection (8)(a), in particular the words:
"when any such conduct or activity as is mentioned in section 95(1) above was being engaged in".
He drew an analogy with a man placing a bomb. I suggest that the conduct engaged in is not only the placing of a bomb but the causing of an explosion. That would be the offence and is not restricted alone to the time at which the device was placed. That argument does not appeal to me one little bit.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to the Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. I must make plain at the outset that it is not correct to suggest that the Government are in any way reneging upon an undertaking which they gave at an earlier stage in this legislation as to what they intended to do about train drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is absolutely correct that that is in part related to this problem.
The opening words of subsection (8) are:
"Where any criminal injury is caused by shock".
Of course it is only a shock injury and no other criminal injury with which we are dealing, which might dispose of some of the problems of bombs and
806
so on. In certain circumstances I accept that there may be only shock arising. To that extent subsection (8) is well-intentioned.
Nevertheless, having heard what has been said, it would be prudent to look again at subsection (8) and go through what is already contained in Clause 98. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, about not being present may be apt for certain of those offences.
I accept that subsection (9) was deliberately placed in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, said in his speech in McLoughlin v. O'Brian. The point is that the recent working party report concluded that it would be appropriate that only a serious and disabling psychiatric condition recognised as nervous shock should be incorporated within the statutory scheme. It was directing itself in slightly different words to the same point that the noble and learned Lord, as I understand it, was making in his speech in McLoughlin v. O'Brian; namely, the difference between the ordinary upset or distress that any of us would feel in witnessing death or injury and something that a psychiatrist would regard as an identifiable illness, reaction or condition.
We take the view that it would go too wide to try to cover compensation for what are common and understandable reactions. Obviously the drawing of the line between the two is difficult and depends on medical evidence, though that is a matter with which the board is well able to deal. I do not take the view that, simply because two psychiatric witnesses differ, at the end of the day the tribunal charged with reaching a decision cannot select one opinion in opposition to the other.
Nevertheless, I suggest that we should look again at subsection (8) and in the circumstances it would be as well that we look again at subsection (9) in view of what has been said. If the noble Lord who moved this amendment is content with that, I undertake to look again at this subsection.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate and to the Lord Advocate for his undertaking to reconsider the subsections. In doing so I ask him to bear in mind that the vast majority of the 250, I think, railway suicide cases that were waiting at the time of the Warner decision were cases where people had been off work for five or six weeks. They had been seen by their general practitioners and not referred to psychiatrists. A number of the members of the board considered that it was not helpful to the health of patients to refer them to a psychiatrist if their general practitioner did not consider it advisable. Sometimes it makes people worse. Therefore, it would be interesting to know whether the board is to be entitled to act on a general practitioner's view of whether or not there is a psychiatric illness. However, in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 75, line 40, leave out (95) and insert (98).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 [Claims for Compensation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 76, line 6, after (by") insert ("or on behalf of").
The noble Lord said: This amendment adds to the number of people who can make a claim. The paragraph would then read:
"A claim for compensation may be made…by or on behalf of any person who sustains a qualifying injury".
There are people who cannot make a claim, such as children or people who have had a serious head injury and who are incapable of doing anything. It is broadly speaking that type of person who has to be covered; otherwise they will not be. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I assure the Committee that the circumstances to which the noble Lord alluded will be covered under rules made under paragraph 17(2)(b) of Schedule 6 and therefore the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That is an interesting observation. I should have thought that it would be easier to put this proposal into the Bill than to make a whole series of rules. At least we would then know where we were. We have not seen the rules. We do not know what they will cover. Undertakings given by the Government are not always met. This amendment could simply be accepted. It does not hurt the Bill. Surely the noble and learned Lord could think again. The words, "or on behalf of", are not going to change the Bill dramatically. However, I do not wish to delay progress.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I should just like to make clear that this will be a matter for the rules and I suggest that that is the proper place to deal with it. But I take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am glad of that. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 196 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 197.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 76, line 7, leave out from ("who") to end of line 15 and insert ("dies after sustaining a qualifying injury (whether or not he dies as a result of it).
(1A) If a person who has sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it, the Board may not award compensation to a dependent of his if before he died he became entitled in accordance with rules under paragraph 17 of Schedule 6 to this Act to a payment of compensation in respect of the injury.
(1B) If a person dies as a result of a qualifying injury, the compensation that may be awarded in respect of that injury includes—

(a) compensation for reasonable funeral expenses paid in respect of him; and

(b) compensation for bereavement not exceeding the amount specified at the time of his death in section 1A(4) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.

(1C) An award under subsection (1B)(a) above may be made to any person other than a public authority.
808
(1D) The only persons to whom an award under subsection (1B)(b) above may be made are persons for whose benefit damages for bereavement may be awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976."
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 76, line 24, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 [Powers to withhold and reduce compensation]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 76, line 41, leave out from ("that") to (": or") in line 42 and insert ("no conduct on his part was connected with the injury").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 201, 202, 203, 204 and 205. This amendment is trying, in effect, to rewrite the provisions of subsections (1)(a) and (b) and to put them into one clause. The difficulty is that at the moment, as it is laid down, the onus of proof is on the applicant to show under Clause 101(1)(a)(iii) that he was in no way responsible, but under Clause 100(1)(b)(ii) the onus is on the board, or the advocate appearing on behalf of the board, to satisfy that his conduct, connected with the occasioning of the injury, should not result in the refusal of an award. In effect, instead of transferring the onus, which terrified some of us some years ago, one has two onuses operating like trains on the same railway line going straight at each other. It is an impossible position with which to deal. I understand that the noble and learned Lord may be prepared to consider these amendments, so it is perhaps better if I just move the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am not unattracted by the purpose of the amendments. A difficulty arises as they stand. We should like to consider further, in consultation with the board, a generally acceptable alternative, if such can be devised.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201 to 205 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 77, line 17, leave out ("95") and insert ("98").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment before. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 77, line 18, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment of a similar character to Amendment No. 209. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 77, line 18, leave out from ("years;") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to leave out subsection (4)(b). Subsection (4) allows the board, if it considers that it is not in the interests of the person who sustains the injury, not to make an award if that person is under 18; and, as it is stated in the Bill as printed, if he is living in the same household as the person or persons responsible for causing the injury. That is a situation which rarely occurs; where, for example, a parent causes injury to a young child—and the board does not consider it to be in the best interests of the child, if it is not a serious injury, that there should be compensation—and at age 18 the child is suddenly told that at the age of two or three he was assaulted by a parent and has £500 which has been accumulating for him.
The amendment seeks to give the board that discretion without confining it to people living in the same household. There are, unfortunately, many cases where, for example, a parent who is divorced is still in contact with the child. A similar situation may arise, although they are not living in the same household. This is a rare case, but it is appropriate that such discretion should be open to the board. It is also appropriate in certain cases of minor sexual assaults on young children. I commend the amendment to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: We do not feel that we can accept the amendment. The subsection gives the board discretion to refuse to make an award. We think that it is right that that discretion should be limited to the circumstances in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). and not widened. I take the point about a child becoming aware, in due course, of the reasons for which the compensation may have been awarded. These are rare and arguable cases. It is accepted of course that in the case of a young child who has been injured, the board can delay payment. When payments are made at the age of 18 to children injured at a younger age, it should be possible to do so in a way that would not go into unnecessary details of the offence. That seems to be the better way to deal with the matter. We should be unwilling to extend the board's discretion. It is only right and proper that this provision should be seen as a counterpart to the discretion which apears in Clause 99(5)(b). For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I support the amendment. Under the present scheme, discretion is not limited to cases where the child lives in the same household as the person responsible for the criminal injury. This clause imposes that limitation for the first time. The purpose of the amendment is to remove that limitation. The purpose of the discretion under the
810
present scheme is that the interest of the child to receive the award may be outweighed by the interests of the child not to be reminded of the offence by the existence of the award. Usually, such cases are cases of sexual abuse of children.
As the Committee well knows, sexual abuse is a major life crisis for a child. It could lead to behavioural problems, sleep and eating disturbances, truancy, emotional difficulties and antisocial tendencies in adolescence. Surely the interest of the child not to receive an award and so be reminded of the circumstances that resulted in the award may be in the child's overriding interest even where the child does not live in the same household as the person responsible; for example, the person responsible could he the father who does not live in the household but frequently visits it, or an uncle who lives elsewhere.
I support my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna on the basis that in children's cases the board should be left with unqualified discretion to do what it thinks best. As I understand the position, the board, either through the social welfare services or sometimes by way of a trust, finds a way to ensure that the child is benefiting without being reminded of the offence. The purpose of the amendment, and why I support it, is that the board's discretion should be present in the case of all children.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord has not been able to accept the amendment or at least to take it away to think about it. I ask him to consider what happens if we are faced with a child of, say, under two who is making an application, and we have a report from a consultant paediatric psychiatrist which says that it is in the interest of the child that the child should never remember this incident. Do we make an award which is paid at the age of 18? What happens if the psychiatrist says that it is not in the best interest of the child for the child to have an award? Should we ignore the medical evidence and make the award? It seems to me to be a ridiculous situation. I regret the fact that the Government are not prepared to consider it. Perhaps they are.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I would be happy to consider the point the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, mentioned about a parent living away from family as a special case which might be considered within the context of the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall continue with what I was going to do. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 77, line 19, leave out ("is") and insert ("was").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 207. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Right of appeal by way of case stated]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 77, line 31, leave out ("28 days") and insert ("3 months").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. I would suggest, and I know that other members of the board agree with me, that three months is a more suitable time for a period for appeal than 28 days, which is far too short. All that a period of 28 days will do is to allow appeals to be notified but not proceeded with. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: We take the view that the time limit proposed here is unusually long. Perhaps I may refer to magistrates' courts. The appeal there by way of case stated is 21 days. Other tribunals have varying time limits, some of only 14 days and others of 28 days. The claimant will be present at a court hearing in most cases, I should have expected, and would have the reasons for the board's decision explained at the time. Therefore 28 days was thought to be a reasonable period.
So far as we are aware, the three months proposed in the amendment is unprecedented. We felt that it was preferable to have a relatively short time in which to appeal with a fairly broad discretion to extend it, as is provided in the clause, rather than a much longer period with a more limited discretion. I suggest that this is the proper way in which to concentrate the mind of the claimant upon the question of appeal. Surely it is desirable for the board to know as soon as possible whether an appeal is being sought. The existing formulation should ensure that in most cases there is given to the board generous discretion to let in out-of-time applications if it thinks that appropriate.
Perhaps the noble Lord would like to muse upon the matter. I have explained that we consider three months too long. Twenty-eight days is one month, and that seems to be a fairly lengthy period in which to make up one's mind about whether one will appeal in the first place. If one has good cause and has not done so in time, one can go to the board and explain why it should allow in an out-of-time appeal. It seems to me that speed is essential in these matters to concentrate the mind. Matters should not be allowed to become stale.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am certainly prepared to go away and muse over what the noble and learned Lord has said. However, it appears that those advising the noble and learned Lord may not appreciate that very large numbers of the cases that go to hearings are conducted by the applicants themselves or by somebody who is not legally qualified. The only ground of appeal given here is that the decision is wrong in law. That means that someone who has heard the decision has then to find somebody to advise him whether it is wrong in law.
That may take some time. It is not quite the same position as an appeal from the magistrates' courts where presumably the person has legal aid, because, as is clear from Amendment No. 211A, there is not legal aid for those appearing before the board.
812
I shall certainly examine what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I hope that he will also consider the position. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211A not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Reimbursement and recovery]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 78, line 42, leave out ("by virtue of paragraph 13") and insert ("under any provision contained in").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary because the board's power to reduce an award in recognition of other payments made to the applicant in respect of the same injury is not intended to be limited to cases under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 but to extend also to paragraphs 12 and 14 of the same schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 214:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
("Board's immunity against action and right to receive certain information.
.—(1) No action shall be brought against the Board, any Board member, any member of the Board's staff or any person providing information or giving evidence to the Board in connection with or arising out of any application to the Board.
(2) It shall be the duty of police authorities—

(i) to provide the Board upon request with all information whether written or otherwise in their possession which may be relevant to the Board's determination of any claim for compensation; and

(ii) to require such police officers as the Board request to attend to give evidence to the Board on the hearing of any claims for compensation by it.

unless the chief officer of police of any such authority certifies that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the withholding of any such information or evidence in the public interest in which case that police authority will be relieved of its duty aforesaid to the extent so certified.").
The noble Lord said: The first part of the new clause proposed by this amendment reads:
"No action shall be brought against the Board, any Board member, any member of the Board's staff or any person providing information or giving evidence to the Board in connection with or arising out of any application to the Board".
The objective is to preclude actions for conspiracy as well as for defamation. Absolute privilege in defamation cases probably applies to a tribunal such as the board, but it is not certain and it should be made certain.
Members of the Committee will appreciate the extent to which the effectiveness of the board is dependent on the fullest co-operation by the police. From time to time police officers express anxieties in advance of hearings about whether they are protected by privilege from action in the courts. If some

813
disgruntled person were even to begin proceedings against a single police officer in defamation, or more than one in conspiracy, arising out of evidence to the board then police officers generally would feel inhibited in the assistance that they give the board, at least until the action had wended its way through the courts and had been resolved. The purpose of the first subsection of this clause is to ensure that the board and all those who assist it are not subject to any feelings of restraint or inhibition in the vital business of getting at the truth.
Subsection (2) reads:
"It shall be the duty of police authorities:

(i) to provide the Board upon request with all information whether written or otherwise in their possession which may be relevant to the Board's determination of any claim for compensation; and

(ii) to require such police officers as the Board request to attend to give evidence to the Board on the hearing of any claims for compensation by it,

unless the chief officer of police of any such authority certifies that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the withholding of any such information or evidence in the public interest in which case that police authority will be relieved of its duty aforesaid to the extent so certified".
This subsection would impose a duty of co-operation upon the police. It would not be an absolute duty because the chief officer of police could excuse his force by certificate stating that there were exceptional circumstances making it not in the public interest for information or evidence to be given in a particular case.
I say straight away that experience has shown that generally the police co-operate fully with the board and that there is an excellent working relationship in practice between the board and the various police authorities. This amendment is in no way intended to cast doubt upon that. Equally, however, experience has shown that there are rare occasions when police officers have not co-operated or have not co-operated to the extent that they should. In those cases justice can be impaired.
I appreciate that it might be said that it should not be necessary to legislate to oblige one public body to assist and co-operate with another, but in fact the statute book is replete with obligations between public bodies to inform, to consult and to co-operate in various ways. The purpose of this amendment is to assert that the primary duty exists. For any police officer not to comply, he would, if it came to it, need his chief officer to certify that there were exceptional reasons in the public interest warranting his non-co-operation. The balance is struck by giving the police the last word in those exceptional cases.
I would support the amendment by saying that if it were accepted the board's powers would be supplemented in a desirable way and that the small minority of cases where co-operation has not been all that it ought to have been and where all the board today can do is to exhort would cease to exist.
Lord Denning: I hope the Committee will not accept this amendment. It is quite plain that the people who give evidence or make statements before a board may be liable in defamation unless they are protected by privilege. They may also be liable for injurious falsehood if they make a malicious
814
statement without reasonable or probable cause. This gives far too wide an exemption from the ordinary common law. As to the duty of the police authorities, it is quite plain that they co-operate at the moment, and I suggest that there is no need whatever for this new clause.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In moving this amendment the noble Lord said truly that the statute book is replete with provisions enjoining one public body to co-operate with another. I can only say so much the worse for the statute book. I trust that for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend the Committee will not accept this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. I hope the Committee will not accept subsection (1) or subsection (2) for the reasons that have been given. The device of subsection (2) is that it creates a statutory duty and presumably envisages some form of enforcement. The mind boggles at that in this context.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lords who have spoken because it renders my task almost otiose. In deference to the excellent arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, which I fear are incorrect, I shall simply say that our understanding is that once the board is established on a statutory basis hearings before it will attract the same privilege as hearings before other statutory tribunals. I refer the noble Lord to the speech of the late Lord Diplock in Trapp v. Mackie. To legislate for it here might well create an undesirable precedent and put in doubt the position of the existing tribunals. I do not think that that is something we wish to have.
With regard to the second matter, I find myself entirely in agreement with what has been said already. Any difficulties that arise can be overcome by contact with the chief officers of police concerned. The noble Lord has accepted that the police generally co-operate. In special cases where there is difficulty local contact will achieve much more than statutory duties. I therefore cannot advise the Committee to accept the new clause.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Abolition of peremptory challenge]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 80, line 3, after ("cause") insert ("and the right of the Crown to direct a person to stand by").
The noble Lord said: We now come to one of the set piece debates on this Bill, the debate on jury challenge, but we begin with a modest and humble amendment, Amendment No. 215. The present position in relation to jury challenge for cause—in other words, the reason as to why a particular juror should not serve, a matter upon which the trial judge adjudicates—is that both the defence and the prosecution have an unlimited number of such challenges. However, when it comes to challenging

815
without giving a cause—peremptory challenge—each defendant is limited to three such challenges, whereas the prosecution still has a totally unlimited number. It is true that they are not called peremptory challenges. They are called, "standing by for the Crown". However, apart from a certain technical difference of no relevance at this stage, it amounts to the same thing.
Clause 107, which we shall be debating in a few moments' time, is a proposal by the Government to abolish the defence right of peremptory challenge. This amendment seeks to say that if that is going to be done against the defence it would be manifestly fair and evenhanded that the prosecution's right of peremptory challenge should also be abolished. It would be presumptuous of me to seek to advise the Committee as to the course that this discussion might take. It may be that the Committee will think that it might be helpful if we hear at an early stage from the Minister as to the reactions of the Government to Amendment No. 215.
The indications so far are that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. I have a letter sent by the Home Office in April of this year giving reasons why the Government may be sympathetic in spirit to the amendment but do not find it practical to support it. I do not want to discuss those reasons at length now but I find them superficial. I believe it is perfectly possible for the Crown's right of peremptory challenge to be abolished and still solve the problems they have in mind. This could be achieved by allowing challenge for cause to take place but not in open court, although perhaps that is a matter to which we can come at a later stage in the Bill.
It might be helpful if the Government were at this stage to give their reaction to Amendment No. 215. If the Government were prepared now categorically to say that they are willing to legislate not only to abolish the defence right of peremptory challenge but also the prosecution right, it might indicate to some Members of the Committee that they were seeking to be fairminded in this matter and it might therefore indicate to some Members of the Committee that it might be possible to support Clause 107 abolishing the defence right of peremptory challenge.
On the other hand, if the Government continue to talk, as they did in their letter of last April, about guidelines, discretion, practice and so forth, but are not willing to give a commitment to legislate so as to be even handed, then it might strengthen the views of some Members of the Committee that the proposal in Clause 107 to abolish the defence right of peremptory challenge is unfair and manifestly biased against the defence. For that reason it might be that the Committee will think it appropriate to let the Minister deal with this matter straight away.
It is by pure drafting chance that this amendment comes before the main debate on Clause 107. That was not of my choice. It may be that the Committee will agree that logically the main debate on Clause 107 should take place at the earliest possible moment. When the Minister has replied to these few observations of mine, I shall ask the Committee's
816
leave to withdraw Amendment No. 215 for an obvious reason. We ought to decide first the principal issue of Clause 107 standing part of the Bill.
If it stands part of the Bill, I would propose to put down this amendment on Report, and if necessary press it to a Division. Of course if Clause 107 does not stand part of the Bill today, then the amendment to which I now speak ceases to have any relevance. I hope that that will be a course acceptable to the Committee. With those few observations, I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Havers: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for feeling a little strange. This is the first time that I have spoken from the Back Benches for almost exactly 15 years. On 6th November 1972, I became Solicitor-General.
I should like to deal with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, because I believe I have something probably rather unique to contribute. In any very serious case—such cases were classified by me as Attorney-General—there could be an investigation into the background of a juror in strictly controlled circumstances. There was always the risk—and indeed it happened from time to time—that certain facts came out which made that juror totally unsuitable to serve. But they were facts from sources which would make it impossible to challenge for cause and disclose them.
When one looks at the fair balance that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is seeking to establish between the defence and the prosecution, I think that in fact it would not be a fair balance. It cannot be right that somebody who is prejudiced or biased to the cause of the prosecution for reasons that we know but cannot disclose should serve on a jury.
I give to the Committee one example. In a serious IRA case in which I was involved a number of years ago, it turned out that one of the jurors was the girl friend of a notorious, well-known international terrorist. I do not think that any Member of the Committee sitting in this Chamber today would have felt confident if that lady had been serving on that jury. I do not think that anybody could have felt that there was any way in which she could be unprejudiced or unbiased.
Those are only some grounds. There are many more grounds of which I know but I am afraid that most of them have to remain under wraps. Certainly in my experience—and it was the longest experience for 250 years—as Attorney-General, I always had the result of the investigations reported to me, and I gave the instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions as to what he was to do with counsel when somebody popped up on the wrong side of the line.
A number of cases we allowed to go on. In some cases we explained to defending counsel why we were going to challenge. But there were a number of cases where it would be quite impossible, in my view, for one to say that that juror would approach the particular problem—usually, terrorism or very big armed robberies—in a fair and unbiased way.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The words that have fallen from the noble and learned Lord justify in themselves (do they not?) the purpose of this amendment? It was one of the most remarkable speeches that certainly I have heard in this House. It now appears that the prosecution, in circumstances which are strictly controlled, are prepared to vet jurors in certain cases and to discover that potential jurors are totally unsuitable for jury service for reasons that they may be prejudiced or biased to the case of the prosecution, but that the reasons for this cannot be given in open court.
I ask the simple question: why on earth should the prosecution have this power and the defendant not have this power? Supposing, on this jury, the lady in question had been the girl friend of the officer in charge of the case? Supposing the lady on the jury had been the girl friend of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Why on earth should this power be allowed to the Crown and not to the defence?
It is vital for the defence to know which members of the jury arc biased or prejudiced. In later debate, that will really be the essence of the retention of the right to challenge. The suggestion that it should be only the Crown which has this power surely justifies the amendment. Either you get rid of it on both sides or you keep it for both sides.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish briefly to support my noble and learned friend Lord Havers. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, seemed to me wholly unrealistic. It seemed to take no account of the due interest of the state, no account of national security and no account whatever of the way in which, by tradition, Mr. Attorney discharges his duties. There must be within the Attorney's province this power which has been so clearly explained. One really must, I should have thought, retain a sense of realism about this.
Lord Roskill: I do not want to postpone the amendment on which the noble Earl the Minister will deal with this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested. Nor do I wish to postpone the main debate. I would just say that the proposal about the right of the Crown to claim stand by for jurors emanated, as did the proposal to abolish peremptory challenge, from the report of the Fraud Trials Committee. We were then dealing with—and only dealing with—serious fraud trials. That is a matter the Committee will wish to consider later.
It is only right to say, as I have just confirmed with my noble friend Lord Benson, who is sitting behind me, that when my colleagues and I proposed that the two rights should both be abolished—the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, anticipated this a few moments ago—we regarded it as fair that the same rights should be lost on both sides. We took, into account the point that my noble and learned friend Lord Havers made; namely, that there are cases where security considerations arise. Indeed many of us in our trial judge days have had this challenge for that reason.
Although at a later stage when we come to discuss something else I may differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I agree with him on this. If, as we
818
all know happens, there is a security risk challenge that the Crown wish to make—the type of case that the noble and learned Lord mentioned is not unique—then I cannot for the life of me see why that should not be dealt with in camera like other matters of this kind.
If the Committee, as I hope that it later will, approve in principle that there should henceforth only be challenge for frauds, then for our part of the Fraud Trials Committee, and speaking here today, I venture to think that there is no reason why what is sauce for the goose should not also be sauce for the gander and vice versa. As with peremptory challenge, the right to stand by for the Crown is ancient. However, in my own trial judge experience, it is not used frequently and when it is used it is needed. It is often used because somebody suspects a juror of being illiterate and not having a sufficient understanding, or of being half blind or deaf.
Subject to that, I suggest that, if Clause 107 goes forward as part of the Bill, there is a strong case for adopting what is recommended in the Fraud Trials Report and putting the Crown in the same position. I say that with the utmost respect for my noble and learned friend Lord Havers.
Lord Denning: As we are all expressing our views in advance of the Minister, I should like to say that I strongly support the right of the Crown to ask a juror to stand by because the prosecution may know—but they cannot disclose it openly—that some of the jurors are associated with the defendants in the dock, or that they have criminal records or that they may be seditious or terrorist people. The prosecution alone knows that and it seems to me that it is quite entitled, and it is its duty to ask a juror to stand by in circumstances where it cannot disclose the real reasons why the juror should not be there.
I entirely support all that my noble and learned friend Lord Havers has said. His reasons had appealed to me long before but he expressed them so well that I support them entirely now.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I also support the right of the Crown to call for stand by. It is an ancient right but so is the right of the defendant peremptorily to challenge. I understand that juries were established as part of the criminal trial process in the 13th Century when Pope Innocent II decreed the abolition of trial by ordeal. One sometimes feels that a trial by jury is something of a trial by ordeal. However, since that time the right of a defendant peremptorily to challenge has remained. As I understand the matter, originally the defence could challenge up to 35 jurors. In 1949 that was reduced to seven and during my time on the Woolsack—if I may put it in that brief way—the defence right of challenge was reduced from seven to three. The kind of difficulties that have been explained and that come in the way of the prosecution and the Crown in having to avoid explanations in embarrassing circumstances can equally affect the position of the defendant and those advising him. While I am not terribly fond of a goose, geese and ganders being introduced into the argument, in my submission it is quite unjust and monstrous to continue the right of the Crown to

819
direct a person to stand by and remove the ancient right of the defendant peremptorily to challenge in the limited amount now available to him, which is three challenges.
5.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, introduced the short debate. He is right in saying that we can separate this item from the main debate in respect of Clause 107. Although in earlier debates the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has made clear his own distaste for peremptory challenge, it is with great pity that I must depart from him on the question of the prosecution's right of stand by.
I hope that it will help the Committee if I explain briefly what stand by is and how it is used. It is sometimes talked about as though it were the mirror image of the right of peremptory challenge. It is indeed a similar procedure but with some important differences.
The Crown has no right of peremptory challenge. It may however direct a person whose name is called to stand by until the whole panel has been exhausted. At that point the Crown must show cause why the person should not serve. In practice matters rarely reach that stage. Panels are normally sufficiently large and, more importantly, the right is exercised only infrequently. According to the Crown Prosecution Service survey, to which noble Lords will doubtless refer in due course, stand by is used in something like 4 to 5 per cent. of trials.
Stand by is not used for the same purposes as peremptory challenge. It is not used because the prosecutor does not like the look of a juror. Nor is it used because the prosecutor thinks a juror appears unlikely to be willing to reach a guilty verdict. But we have acknowledged that the abolition of peremptory challenge strengthens the case for limiting the use of stand by to strictly defined circumstances.
My noble and learned friend, who has spoken so eloquently this afternoon, when he was Attorney-General prepared draft guidelines which prosecutors would be expected to observe. The effect of the guidelines would be that in future stand by would be confined to two categories of cases. The first is where a jury check has been authorised by the Attorney-General under the separate published guidelines which have existed for several years and which were updated last year. Such checks are confined to cases involving terrorism or national security.
It is worth recalling the terms in which the guidelines envisaged stand by being used. Paragraph 9 reads:
"No right of stand by should be exercised by counsel for the Crown on the basis of information obtained as a result of an authorised check unless the information is such as, having regard to the facts of the case and the offences charged, to afford strong reason for believing that a particular juror might be a security risk, be susceptible to improper approaches or be influenced in arriving at a verdict for the reasons given above".
When one looks at the reasons given above, they are broadly any danger that the juror, either voluntarily or under pressure, will make improper use of sensitive
820
information given in camera or that his political beliefs are so extreme as to interfere with his judgment of the case. I do not believe that it would be right to dispense with the prosecution's right of stand by in cases of that kind. It is also worth recalling how rare are these cases. In the whole of the period from 1982 to mid-1985 full jury checks were authorised on only 11 juries and eight jurors were stood by in all. In the same cases no fewer than 63 peremptory challenges were issued.
The second circumstance in which the draft guidelines envisage stand by still being available is where a juror is manifestly unsuited for jury service. To give an example of the latter, a potential juror with poor reading ability would have great difficulty in coping with a case which required him to read documents put forward in evidence. Lord Roskill's Committee—and I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord in his place—advocated that fraud cases should be triable by a tribunal because of the complications. In the Criminal Justice Act 1987, which concerned the Serious Fraud Office, it was agreed that there should still be trial by jury. Nevertheless, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is valid and stand by provides the means to deal with cases where the potential juror is manifestly unable to cope with the case.
By the use of stand by he can quietly be removed with minimum embarrassment. I gather that that is often done by tacit agreement between the prosecution and the defence. That seems to be a sensible and humane solution to the problem and it is already used for such purposes with no controversy at all.
I should be willing to look at that aspect of our proposal again but my present view is that it would be a great pity to lose what is an eminently useful and reasonable facility. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the assurance that he seeks. I do not believe that the issue is one of equity, as he describes. The case for peremptory challenge stands on its own and I think that that can be justified.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to say how delighted we are to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, in your Lordships' House. I hope that he is being rapidly restored to the best of health.
I have only three observations to make. First, we ought not to deal with this issue on the basis that there is any difference between peremptory challenge and the prosecution's right of stand by. There is a purely technical difference, if the whole panel happens to be exhausted. I have never known it happen and I doubt whether any other Member of the Committee has experienced it; so that is a purely academic matter.
Secondly, the Minister said that the prosecution's right of stand by ought not to be used when prosecuting counsel happens to dislike the appearance of a juror or mistrusts a juror for some unmentionable reason. It may be that the prosecution's right of stand by should not be used in those circumstances. Certainly it has frequently been so used. All those who have taken part in jury trials have heard counsel for the Crown challenge jurors and order then to stand by for the Crown, and have

821
been told afterwards by counsel for the Crown that it was for no other reason than some such personal idiosyncrasy.
Thirdly, there is the substantial matter mentioned by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Havers and Lord Denning. I entirely accept that it is not possible to mention openly such information as that the prosecution has discovered that a juror may be the girlfriend of an international terrorist. I believe that it must be possible to devise a system under which the prosecution can challenge such a juror for cause and the matter can be brought to the attention of the judge without it being done in public, so that throughout the trial the prosecution's right remains on the same basis as that of the defence.
Having said that, as I mentioned at the beginning I accept that in such a short debate the Committee is putting the cart before the horse. With the Committee's permission, I now beg leave to withdraw the cart so that we can proceed to debate the horse.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 215A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hooson: I oppose the Question, That Clause 107 stand part of this Bill. The right of stand by for the Crown is a very important right and the equivalent for the Crown of the defence's right of peremptory challenge. If one right is accepted and the other is rejected, the balance is lost in our system of criminal procedure. To get down to the basics of a trial by jury, in this country the aim of a trial is the return of a just verdict according to the evidence. In the light of experience and knowledge, we believe that the best way of obtaining a just verdict is by means of a jury.
We are told, and it is undoubtedly true, that the essence of the modern jury consists in its random selection of representatives of the community in which the accused lives. Obviously, from the point of view of the public at large, the Crown and the accused, it is very important that the jury approaches its task with no apparent predisposition in favour of guilt or innocence. Moreover, it is quite clearly important that the Crown, representing the authorities in the country, should have confidence in the jury's disposition to be fair just as much as has the accused.
As has already been mentioned in a preliminary debate, the right of peremptory challenge is very ancient. It is a right that has been whittled down over the years; nevertheless, it seems to me that it represents a very important safeguard which, according to Blackstone in his Commentaries was justified by two considerations. First, the prisoner's limited right to object to anybody who "by bare looks or gesture indicated to the accused a view" enabled the prisoner to exercise some rights in obtaining a jury of whom he was entitled to have a good opinion. It gave him a safeguard.
Secondly, the right of peremptory challenge avoided the danger of developing challenge to cause, because, as Blackstone pointed out, the very
822
questions asked or reasons given for challenge to cause may themselves excite prejudice against the accused. However we distinguish it technically, it has been also the equivalent of the right to stand by for the Crown.
Perhaps I may mention that I was in practice very much a "circuiter", and on my circuit peremptory challenge was rarely exercised. 1 can truthfully say that I have stood by jurors for the Crown more often than I have exercised peremptory challenge on behalf of the defence. I believe that the right to stand by on behalf of the Crown is a very important safeguard. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, the former Lord Chancellor was speaking (and I, too, am delighted to see him in his place this evening) I thought how important was not only that right but also the equivalent right. There are certain reasons for standing by a juror that cannot he disclosed by the Crown and it is much better that the Crown simply has the right to do it. Equally, it is right that the defence should have that safeguard.
It is undoubtedly true, as has been said in this Chamber, that there has been a certain misuse of the right of peremptory challenge, in particular in multi-defendant cases. It is a criticism which I have heard only in respect of multi-defendant cases. In some trials there has been such a concerted right of challenge as to lead people to believe that there have been designs on the jury, and that the defence had the intention of finding a jury panel that was favourable, or might be thought favourable to its cause. The profession has to accept that there has been a certain irresponsibility, particularly perhaps in the central criminal courts, where I understand the right to have been exercised more frequently than elsewhere.
The public can be safeguarded by the knowledge that all the inquiries made by the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as published statistics, for what they are worth, show that right to have been exercised in the country at large in only about one in five trials, and that it makes little or no difference to the results. I think I am right in saying that in cases in which there has been a peremptory challenge, by a small percentage the jury is more likely to convict. Certainly, in my experience of peremptory challenges in the majority of cases the jury has convicted in any event. Therefore it is suggested that the right of peremptory challenge is outmoded and is no longer required as a safeguard in this country.
I have reached the conclusion, and so advance it to the Committee, that such a view is wrong. Let me give to the Committee the example I submitted the last time this matter was debated in this assembly. I was involved on behalf of the defence in the Cyprus spy trial in which random selection had gone out of the window. The jury had been positively vetted— I had no complaint at all about that—but by the time there had been the exemptions and excusals of those facing an eight-month trial, and the judge had excused as many as over 100 people, at the end it tended to be limited to a very small panel. Though I did not personally take part in the defence, and I prefer to take my chance with the jury, it is perfectly understandable that the defence used the right of peremptory challenge to ensure that at least there

823
were a few young people on the jury. That is just one example.
Between the excusals and the vetting in important cases the random selection principle is very much watered down. I am not disputing that there may be a case for limiting the right for peremptory challenge, particularly in multi-defendant cases. And I should have entirely supported Amendment No. 215A to limit the number of peremptory challenges in multi-defendant cases. It may well be that there is also a case for limiting peremptory challenges to certain important political cases—cases about which there is a political flavour. Certainly I think that in murder trials peremptory challenges should remain. I feel that we should not get away from this basic principle; that a defendant should feel safe and satisfied with the way in which a jury is allocated in his case. The right of peremptory challenge is for him a safety valve, just as the right to stand by is a safety valve for the Crown. It gives the accused some rights in ensuring that someone whom he feels is basically antipathetic to him, to his views or to his cause, is excluded.
I understand perfectly well a black man in the dock who sees an all white jury—he may be involved in a case which has racial overtones—wanting to see at least one or two people of his own colour on the jury. It is a perfectly understandable feeling. It is the feeling so much better described in Blackstone than by myself.
Therefore, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said that if Clause 107 remains part of the Bill it is possible to produce a kind of remedy for the situation which would then arise—perhaps in the form he outlined in his own report on fraud trials—I am bound to point out that will not be the result. It will simply mean that the peremptory right of challenge has been abolished, full stop. The right of stand by for the Crown will remain. Therefore, in all the circumstances, if we are concerned with the principle of fairness in this country. I do not believe that this Committee should accept Clause 107.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: A slowness in leaping to my feet in no way reflects a lack of confidence in the propositions that I am about to put forward. In my submission, what is proposed in this clause amounts to a serious limitation of the rights of a defendant in criminal trials, a right, I ventured to say earlier, that has existed for hundreds of years. It is for those who seek to make this dramatic change to prove, first, that it is necessary to prevent proven or provable abuse and, secondly, that the change would not be unfair to defendants in their trails.
The Crown Prosecution Service made an interesting survey, covering it is true, only a short period of about three months, of the experience in Crown Courts of the use of peremptory challenge and stand by for the Crown. For what it is worth—I think it is of some value—the survey shows no abuse and no evidence that it led to more acquittals than should have been the case, and no evidence that it is over used in multi-defendant cases. That was the conclusion of a study by the Crown Prosecution
824
Service. Statistically it is curious that where there was no peremptory challenge there was certainly no better result than in cases where there was a challenge. Of course, these statistical curiosities may not prove very much. At any rate, it is evidence and not long-remembered stories that the Committee should have before making this important change. And the evidence is not there.
As to the second aspect—the importance of those who seek to make the change having to show that it would not lead to unfairness for defendants—jury panels are at present unbalanced. There are too few women. There are consistently fewer members of the ethnic minorities than would represent a cross-section of the community as a whole. The right of peremptory challenge is a modest way to limit that unbalance in the state of jury panels. It is three and no more than three. In my submission, the removal of this right would tend to diminish the confidence of the public at large—certainly those who are liable to come before the courts—in the trial process; in the fairness of the trial. It would, in particular, cause great concern, I believe, among the members of the ethnic minorities. Some of the cases that matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has said, arise in that field.
This matter has been looked at carefully in the past. It was looked at in detail in 1977 when the number of challenges permissible was reduced from seven to three. In my submission, there is no evidence of experience since that time to justify this serious intervention in the rights of defendants in criminal trials.
Lord Denning: May I say a word about the history? My noble friend, Lord Hooson, referred to Blackstone. In Blackstone's time peremptory challenges were allowed only in felonies, not in misdemeanours. In felonies, the punishment was capital. The number of challenges was not limited at all and the accused man could not give evidence himself. He could not be represented by counsel. Of course, in favour of life, peremptory challenges could he and were exercised by the man who was threatened with capital punishment. That was the first stage.
I now go on to my stage. During my time at the bar and when I was trying cases, there was never a peremptory challenge before me at all. That was so, 1 believe, with most of the judges from the 1920s onwards, because—and it was a good reason—of a household qualification. The jurors, in Lord Devlin's words, were all "male, middle-aged and middle class". There was no possible ground for any challenge of them; nor was any challenge made. That was in my younger days. Now it has all altered. The first use of challenges arose when women appeared on juries. Some counsel then tried to get an all-male jury or an all-woman jury by use of the challenges. So the number was limited to seven, compared to 20 previously. Then that, too, came to be abused. If you take seven jurors and challenge them without a cause, it really disrupts the whole panel. In 1977, the limit became three. It was then the trouble arose. If there are 10 defendants, each of them having three peremptory challenges, you can challenge 30 or more jurors of the panel. How upsetting it was!

825
What has happened? Let us suppose that a very respectable juror on the panel is called into the witness box at the Old Bailey. He has put on his best suit. He has The Times or some other good newspaper under his arm. Counsel says "Challenge" and he has to go downcast out of the box because he has been challenged in this way. Therefore inferentially the defence does not think that he is a suitable man to try the accused. That is a gross insult to the individual who comes as a juror to do his duty and is then prevented from doing it by the single word "Challenge" by the defence. How easy it is.
In fraud cases there is trial by jury. Also, there is now no longer the male, middle-aged and middle-class image. Everyone over the age of 18 and up to the age of 65—young, old, wise or stupid—can go on to a jury. Is it not wrong that the defence should be able to say, "I do not want a clever man on the jury. I want a young girl of 18. She will not follow it all"? Is it right that the defence should be able to challenge ordinary, respectable citizens on a jury without giving any reason whatsoever for it?
So, as I have thought for a long time, peremptory challenge in these days should be abolished completely. If there is any real cause, that can be dealt with and tried by the judge, but certainly peremptory challenge should be abolished.
Lord Havers: It appears that twice in the same afternoon I am going to give your Lordships' Committee the benefit of my personal experience. I have had quite a lot of experience of jury challenging and have found that there were occasions when there appeared to be no explanation at all. I think the case of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaks—the smart suit and the Financial Times under the arm—has been well established for many years. It is certainly copied by those who do not want to have the bore of serving on a jury. I am sure that a number of my friends who ring me up and ask, "How do I get off serving on a jury?", follow my advice and turn up suitably dressed and accompanied by the suitable newspaper, which used to be the Daily Telegraph, and they are automatically taken off.
But I think that there has been great anxiety over the years about the question of challenges. I had an example, which I think will probably horrify the Committee, in 1977 in which there were four defendants charged with the usual serious offences of attacking Securicor or Group 4 armoured vans. There was one defendant in the middle who was six feet six inches tall and obviously the leader. He took over the challenging. I was at one end prosecuting and the four silks defending were in the row at the Old Bailey, as practically always happens, alongside me. He came to the forefront and stood there and as each juror came to the jury box he would say to one, "Right, you challenge". Then he would point to another and say, "You challenge". He went up and down the row of QCs appearing, the other three defendants seeming to play no part in what was going on.
I finally thought that it was too much, so I got up and said to the judge that I thought it was a right which was exercisable by a defendant on his own behalf, either himself or through his counsel, and the
826
judge—I thought with a degree of reluctance, which surprised me—said, yes, he did not think that it was the proper way to go about it. I think the Committee will not be surprised to find that all 28 peremptory challenges were duly exercised.
It was that that forced me—because it happened towards the end of the Committee stage of the Criminal Law Bill in 1977—to put down an amendment at Report stage in which I had the support of many of my friends, not only my learned friends in the other place but a number of Back-Benchers who had been occupied with this problem. I thought it was a very good debate on the amendment. It reduced the number from seven to three, and it was duly passed. In fact I should have liked to go for nil, but seven to three was a reduction of over 50 per cent. and I took the view, which was very much a political view—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, opposite smiling at me—that we could not ask for more than that at first bite.
But now we are getting a second bite and my experience over many years at the bar—in fact I achieve 40 next year—has been that over the past years peremptory challenges have been grossly abused. Although as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, have pointed out, the statistics are very interesting, one sometimes wonders just how far statistics take us. They can be made to be useful whichever way they go. But my view is that the time has come to abolish peremptory challenge altogether and I hope very much that that is what this Committee will do today.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It is a sad thing if the Committee has to reflect that over the past few years we have been chipping away at our system of justice and at many principles that we have held dear because of a situation which all of us find deplorable; namely, the increasing crime rate. The increasing crime rate, one hopes, will disappear. What remains will be the decisions of your Lordships' Committee as to how we have dealt with solemn principles of justice. We have been chipping away at the onus of proof.
We have been listening—always with respect—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, as to how in regard to complicated fraud cases his committee recommended that juries should be dispensed with altogether. We have listened to submissions in regard to the disappearance of judges and judges only judging trials and having some sort of tribunal consisting of assessors. Now we are having a debate on the Bill in which it is suggested that the right of peremptory challenge to a jury should disappear.
We are doing it just 10 years after we considered all this in 1977, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, reminded us. Let me say on behalf of everyone on these Benches, including I know my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, what a delight it is to see the noble and learned Lord in his place and making a contribution which is so worthy of him, even if we disagree with the views he has expressed.

827
The noble and learned Lord said that what one did then was to take a political decision. With a smile, which was repeated by others who heard that remark in your Lordships' Committee, he said that it was a political decision because one thought then that one could not get away with complete abolition of that right. Is this the way in which the Committee intends to deal with solemn historic rights; that you first realise that you cannot do away with it all in 1977, but you have a plan, having reduced the number, to wait 10 years and then see that the right is abolished altogether? With great respect, it is not an appealing way to ask your Lordships to vote one way or the other.
I want in literally a couple of minutes to take the Committee away from this august atmosphere into what normally happens at a criminal trial and I am addressing myself to those who do not have the privilege, as I put it, of being lawyers. Let me take just one example. We are now a multiracial society. I wish that it could be said that every one of our citizens took it for granted that there was no racial prejudice in our land and that a black defendant who was faced with an all-white jury could feel that he would get a completely fair trial. Most likely the black defendant would obtain a fair trial but in the atmosphere that unfortunately exists at this moment we should find that the average black person feels as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said—that he would like to see someone of his own colour on the jury. That is why this is quite the wrong moment to make this change.
Is the Committee asking that counsel should get up and challenge for cause and say: "I do not trust, on behalf of my client, the fact that there is an all-white jury. I should like, if I may to have somebody of a different colour"? Or would counsel challenge without having to ascribe any such reasons in the interests of race relations generally? I prefer the peremptory challenge.
We must remember that juries are there as the sole judges of fact. It is upon their verdict and not that of the judge that a criminal is either acquitted or convicted. If we only base our argument upon the assumption that justice should appear to be done—that is not a phrase which originated with me—to the ordinary citizens of our land and not as I have said to the Members of the august Chamber we will decide that possibly the right of peremptory challenge should be contained. Possibly in regard to multiple challenges there should be a limit. That would be right and perhaps such an amendment will come before us on Report. That point could not be argued today because of the absence of my noble friend Lord Gifford, who I believe was going to move an amendment along those lines. I ask the Committee not to abolish this right completely. That would be a grave injustice, especially at this hour.
Lord Roskill: With profound respect to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I earnestly urge the Committee to retain Clause 107 as part of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked what evidence there was of abuse. With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, I was a little surprised to hear the rhetorical question when the
828
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, with his long legal experience accepted that the right of peremptory challenge had been seriously abused.
Of course this is a matter upon which opinions differ. We considered this with great care before the fraud trial Committee. I hope that I shall not weary the Committee if I say that, not surprisingly, in the evidence we received there was a difference of opinion as to the propriety of the exercise of the right of peremptory challenge. We were cited the evidence of one then very distinguished practitioner at the criminal bar who is now a judge at the Old Bailey. He said that he had been so outraged by what had been happening at the Old Bailey that he refused to exercise the right of challenge on behalf of a client and left it to the prisoner to exercise his own right of challenge. We have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, what can happen at the Old Bailey even in those circumstances.
This is not the kind of mathematics that requires the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but I invite the Committee to do a little simple statistical exercise. There may be 250 people who are summoned to the Old Bailey. A great many of them will be excused before they get there on grounds of holidays, age, health and for other reasons. By the time the panel reaches the Old Bailey it will consist of 100 people and there will be eight prisoners. From that group of 100 people there will be more excuses. There will be the man who is going on holiday, the self-employed person who cannot leave his business, the pregnant mother, the mother who is looking after small children and a host of other excuses.
The kindly judge will say: "Yes, of course you must be excused". So the panel of 100 people will probably be reduced to 80 or even 70 people. There will then be eight prisoners each with a challenge right of three. That means 24 off my 70. What then happens to the principle of random exercise? It is being hopelessly abused and has been abused. All the evidence that we had pointed that way. Hence our recommendation with a single exception for the reasons, which the Committee may or may not think convincing, in the dissenting note.
That being so, is there any case for retaining this? I have the greatest sympathy, as we made clear in the report, for the problems of the ethnic minority. Of course one understands the problem of the coloured man who goes into the dock and who is faced with a white jury. If there was any way round that difficulty one would of course support it, but it is not solved by peremptory challenge. Let us say for example that there is an all-white jury with a single coloured man in the dock and three peremptory challenges. The three are replaced by another three white men and the problem is not solved. There may be two prisoners and six peremptory challenges. I have seen six replaced by another six, and so it continues.
If a challenge for cause is instituted as we recommended in the report, I suggest that any sensible judge will do his utmost to see that by the use of challenge for cause the rights of the ethnic minority are properly preserved. No one is more conscious of this than I. As a newly appointed English judge I was sent to Wales on my first assize and I realised who

829
the masters were and what it was like to be in a minority in court when faced with the tigers of the Welsh bar.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not speaking of the ethnic minority or of the people who were the first inhabitants of the island; namely the Welsh. But is it not the case that in an attempt to show cause it has not been accepted that because the jury is all-white and the defendant is black that should be a reason for altering the composition of the jury?
Lord Roskill: The noble and learned Lord as a former Lord Chancellor has much greater recent experience than I have of this matter. I can only say that I am aware of cases where a judge has gone out of his way to see that coloured people were on the jury. I recall one case at Birmingham which occurred quite a long time ago now when I took that step. I may or may not have been entitled to do that but I did it, with unfortunate results.
It is often said that if the right of challenge for cause is extended we shall get ourselves into the transatlantic position of taking three days to choose a jury. The present law on challenge for cause is clear. There must he some evidence shown before the judge will allow the matter to be gone into. However, I do not believe that if the right of challenge for cause is exercised sensibly by counsel and, above all, by the judges concerned there is any cause for fear in that direction.
The day has come when one must stop abuse. Of course historically peremptory challenge was necessary. The Stuart Kings and their law officers used to pack juries. The attorney-generals of those days secured the packing of juries. In the last century there was the notorious Peter the Packer in Ireland, who left no stone unturned to see that juries would convict.
The purpose of this amendment is not to secure more convictions. I said that on Second Reading and I repeat it now. The purpose of this amendment is to stop an abuse which has been going on for far too long. Those of us who do believe in jury trials in the appropriate case are increasingly concerned that, if the abuse continues, trial by jury in those cases for which it remains wholly suitable will become discredited in the eyes of the general public.
Perhaps I may have one last word on the matter. The Times, which has already been mentioned as a reputable newspaper by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, contained correspondence a few years ago from outraged jurors who had been challenged. I do not know how many Members of the Committee will have seen challenges being exercised. Perfectly respectable people are challenged and are almost ritually thrown off juries. One frequently sees a look of indignation and realises that they regard the whole thing as a lawyers' game and an insult to their integrity. They do not see why it has happened.
Those are the reasons why the clause should stand part of the Bill. I urge the Committee to let it stand.
6 p.m.
Lord Grimond: Whatever we may do as regards abolishing peremptory challenge, we shall certainly
830
not increase the number of jurors from ethnic minorities. Nor are we going to give ethnic minorities any great sense that something will be done about what has been called their justifiable anxieties.
I do not have the experience of previous speakers. However, I have had some interest in this matter for a long time. Long ago I went as a Marshal to Mr. Justice Lewis on the Welsh Circuit. He was there charged with trying the Welsh nationalists who set fire to an aerodrome on Owen Glendower's birthplace. It was a celebrated trial which aroused much interest among the ethnic majority in the country. Not only are the Welsh an ingenious race; they are invariably courteous. That is very baffling to the British. They took every advantage which the law allowed. When I tell the Committee that among those defending was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, it will understand that the trial was of a very high order. I much enjoyed sitting on the Bench as challenges for various reasons went by and more and more jurors were taken away. Then I suddenly received a note saying, "If we run out of jurors, it is the duty of the judge's marshal to go into the streets and capture more". I think that the phrase is "praying the tailes".
The thought of being despatched into the High Street seething with agile and powerful Welsh men and women and capturing a dozen or two concentrated my mind. The point is that that was a trial in which half the people in Wales thought that the criminals were not those in the dock but rather the English officials who had decided to put an aerodrome down on Owen Glendower's birthplace. It was essential that all the advantages which the English law gave to a defendant should be deployed.
I believe that that is still very much the case and I agree with what has been said. It may be a logical system. But if we are going to introduce logic into the law, one of the things one might consider is abolishing the English Bar. However, I gather that that would not be so popular with many of the lawyers who are intent upon introducing logic.
Logic is one thing; public support and public understanding are quite another. Whatever the logic may be, I believe that if Parliament at this moment decides to abolish one of the oldest of the civil liberties known to our law, it is going to be regarded by minorities in this country as a blow aimed at them. They are going to say that as long as the English, Welsh or even the Scots were affected, such things were allowed. But now that other people, who, possibly wrongly, have come to doubt some aspects of how the country is run, are here, the liberties which we have always said were fundamental to this country are gradually being eroded.
It has been said that that is what has been going on in this Bill already. I do not believe that any useful purpose will be served by taking away the last remnants of peremptory challenge. If that alone was all that was needed to restore law and order in this country, then I should be very much surprised. I believe that it will shake public confidence if we, at this moment when there is real anxiety, do away with something which has not been demonstrated as leading to any great increase in crime and, however illogical it may be, is and has been for many generations regarded as a central element of the law.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said that we had been chipping away at our ancient liberties for the past 10 years. On the contrary, I believe that we have been rationalising a criminal law which was based more on the ethics of fox hunting than on common sense. I believe that a rational system of justice is in the end one which commands the respect of the public.
With great respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken, the right of peremptory challenge at numbers of three is perfectly useless for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill for the purpose of protecting minorities. It is only useful in multihanded cases where it is used for a purpose for which it was never intended.
It is difficult not to be slightly anecdotal when one handles the subject. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I tell two short anecdotes from my experience to illustrate the point I am trying to make. It happened that when the number of challenges was seven I was defending a young woman who was accused of murdering her child. She had beaten the two year-old child to death with a stick. I found to my dismay that when the jury was empanelled it was a jury of males. The circumstances were such that I thought it absolutely imperative that I should have a panel with at least some women on it.
When the jury came to be sworn I told the judge that I was going to challenge until I had exhausted my challenges in order to get at least three women on the jury. The judge, who was the late Mr. Justice Cusack, said, "That is a very improper remark, Mr. Hogg". I replied, "I thought your Lordship ought to know what I am going to do and why I am going to do it". By great good fortune, the first three jurors turned out to be women.
It is statistically incorrect to say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, that there are too few women on juries. Jurors are taken from the voting lists and statistically, unless they are excused, there will be a majority of women in most cases. If that is not so, it is because women have been excused. The point I make is that it was lucky in that case that the first three jurors happened to be women. The statistical chances in favour of black men, for instance, is that there will not be even one black man on a jury as a result of the use of three challenges.
I shall try in a moment to point out the way forward, which corresponds rather well with the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill. However, I shall next tell the Committee my other anecdote. It happened that some years before the incident which I have just recounted I was defending a number of people who were subsequently convicted. I believe that there were four defending counsel and 10 defendants. I received direct instructions from my lay client that I was to challenge whenever he gave me a certain signal from the dock. Unlike the counsel who refused to take such an instruction, I, rightly or wrongly, took the view that as the right inhered in the client he was entitled to instruct his counsel to challenge whenever he did not like the look of a juror. He did that up to and including the number of seven, all of whom I duly challenged. I regarded that as a gross abuse of the
832
right of peremptory challenge. I also regarded it as my professional duty to challenge when I was told, because the right is that of the client and not of the counsel.
I regard three as totally useless for the purpose of achieving the kind of object which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, are suggesting. It is only useful for the purposes of advocacy; but I think there is a substantial point behind that being made. If instead of saying, "That is a very improper remark to make, Mr. Hogg", Mr. Justice Cusak had said, "I quite understand your point of view, Mr. Hogg", and he had been entitled to give effect to it, it would have been a very reasonable thing for him to do. I believe that behind this feeling that minorities may not be sufficiently recognised there is a genuine point that one should be entitled to object to the array, as the technical phrase is, on grounds which are not now admitted as part of our law.
However, the way forward is not to retain this totally obsolete form of peremptory challenge but to look at the grounds upon which challenges can be made, particularly a challenge to the composition of the jury. That is the way forward—not the proposal to omit Clause 107 from the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken said some interesting things about a debate which is not taking place. The debate now taking place is a question of abolition; not what you could have instead. The issue seems to me a simple one: does this right of challenge contribute significantly to a fair trial or is there evidence that its exercise tends to bring about injustice?
Its origin seems to be totally irrelevant at this stage—as irrelevant as it would be in respect of argument for the abolition of this Chamber. The point at issue is: is it of service in the administration of justice today? There are many involved in the practice of the criminal law—Treasury counsel who prosecute and advocates who defend—who are passionately concerned to maintain a certain standard of justice in a criminal trial. They have made it very clear to the Home Secretary and to the public that they consider this right to be one of the most important of the checks and balances making up our trial system. And our system remains one of the fairest in the world at the moment.
Why is it that those who practise in the courts—those who are at the coal-face, those who do the job—are for the retention of this right whereas those who have now reached a safe old age on the bench are the ones who tend to be against it? What is required is an efficient and just system which makes all those who participate, and particularly the accused, feel at the end of the trial that they have seen a system that was fair in its operation.
When the accused hears the 12 names of the jury who are to try him, he does not know how the jurors have been selected. He does not know whether the jury has been rigged or vetted. We heard a certain amount from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, as to what happens in that situation. The

833
noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at Second Reading, let another large cat out of his bag of judicial reminiscences, if I may say so, on the question of rigging. I refer to col. 970 of the Official Report of 14th July 1987. This is what he said, referring to the case he mentioned today which took place at the Old Bailey:
"I tried a complicated fraud case at the Old Bailey many years ago. I do not know how it happened but I expect whoever was arranging the panel was able to look down the list of occupations, and in this way there were accountants, bank clerks insurance clerks and so on. It was a first-rate jury that could understand and try the case. After six weeks it came to what I thought was a completely right decision."
The Committee will have guessed what the decision was. He went on:
"Now that has all changed. Youngsters of 18 and 19 … are jurors. No wonder the prosecution hesitates to prosecute when the case is to be tried by a jury—I do not say this offensively—of ignoramuses".
There is the truth of the matter and one of the most important reasons why this right of challenge should be preserved. I and other noble Lords in this Chamber who have practised in the criminal law will have heard judges telling the clerk to keep a convicting jury together, not to let it be broken up, and to send it into another court. Because that used to happen, when I was younger, at a certain sessions, it gave rise to an increase in jury challenge at that court.
Those may be important reasons for keeping this right. It gives the accused some say in the make-up of the jury who will decide his fate. As we have heard, when he looks at the jury, they may be all men, all women, all old, all young or all from one locality. If we are going to tell anecdotes, I shall tell only one. I myself stood by jurymen in a case when I was appearing for the prosecution because a newspaper had carried a highly prejudicial account of the previous hearing— prejudicial to the accused I was prosecuting. I stood by for the Crown a number of jurymen who, by their addresses, obviously came from that area.
Another reason for this power to maintain the proper administration of the law is that it can be done by a quick and simple use of the peremptory challenge. It avoids what will inevitably happen if it is now abolished; that is, if public application is made in the presence of the juryman, if questions are asked, and if the application is turned down, there will be a juryman on the jury who very naturally will be biased against the accused.
There is no grievance in challenging a jury. Any judge who knows how to conduct a trial warns the jury beforehand that there may be challenges. This is a perfectly normal course of events. It involves nothing personal to the juryman himself if he is asked not to sit in that particular case.
It is said that the right to challenge distorts the system of random selection. We have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, that selection is not random. He has made that abundantly clear. In the Cyprus case, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, 71 persons were excused service and 11 were challenged by the eight defendants.
What is required so far as possible is an unprejudiced jury. That is what we all require; and random selection simply fails to achieve this on
834
occasions. The idea that an advocate challenges anyone wearing a tie or reading the Daily Telegraph or The Times is simply grotesque. It is almost as grotesque as suggesting that young ladies of 18 are all morons. Advocacy is based on argument and it is reasoning that convinces the listener. You cannot argue with a fool or someone who cannot follow a train of thought.
The reason the Government seek to abolish this right appears to be because of what was said in the Roskill Report. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, those few pages on the question of challenge of jurors can only be described as written in intemperate and unreasonable language. No evidence was produced in that report to show that one single trial had been influenced by the exercise of the challenge. Words are used such as "manipulation", "abuse", and "rigging". Nothing in that report is evidence of any of those words.
As we know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, who was, I think, Attorney-General at the time, immediately instituted a survey by the Crown Prosecution Service. In order to do what? I quote:
"to obtain a basis of fact on which the Government can decide whether action is needed".
It was said in the White Paper:
"in order to inform debate when the matter is before Parliament".
We know that after 11 months of inquiries stretching across England and Wales that report had not one single fact in it to show that in any single case there had been any form of abuse in relation to the verdict which was returned. As it has already been said, there were slightly more convictions where there were challenges than where there was none. It may well be that if the prosecuting authorities continue to put such a large number of people in the dock at one time there will be more and more challenges, and that may be an inconvenience and an irritation.
In the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I know that what I am going to say is brave. I may be wrong. As I understand it, in Scotland there are three challenges allowed. I understand also that when the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament it started with a clause with one challenge. That was increased to three challenges during the course of the Bill. If I am right about that it will certainly be of interest to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what the argument is that what is cherished in Scotland should be abolished in England. I urge the Committee to support this Motion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has truly said, the onus is upon the Government to justify change. I hope the Committee will agree that the onus has been fully discharged. The noble and learned Lord also said that it must be shown that this change does not operate unfairly on the accused. Again, surely that can be shown.
It is a simple question. It is: why should an accused continue to enjoy what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, calls the ancient, solemn and historic right—if I have it correctly—to seek without any cause to select the jurors who shall try him? Challenge

835
to the array as mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is quite another thing. It is very much for consideration but it is not before us on this amendment.
In the whittled down form it is true that this anachronism has an advantage to the accused which tips the scales in his favour. I ask the Committee: why should the scales be tipped in favour of an accused today when he can give evidence as he could not in Blackstone's day? Already there are adequate safeguards to afford a fair trial. There is the burden of proof and the standard of proof which rests with the Crown and the overall presumption of innocence. The removal of the right to challenge without cause is a fair, reasonable and requisite corrective in the interests of the due administration of justice.
It is today an illogical refinement to trial by jury which was not illogical in Blackstone's day, as explained so lucidly in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Today it is not only illogical; it is subject to exception and it is subject to abuse. It indeed invites abuse while it exists. This was explained from the experience of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when he was at the bar, and I have been in the same position myself. Counsel is obliged to challenge without cause to seek to select a jury which, on his instructions, appears to his client most likely to acquit.
In the result there is no getting away from it—jurors are challenged on ethnic considerations, by reason of sex or age and apparent social background. It is idle to mock at the man in the natty gent's suit with the Daily Telegraph. I have seen it happen. We have all seen it happen. We have all seen jurors challenged because they appear to be respectable. I saw it happen only last month when sitting as a recorder at Lewes—my month in the country.
Jurors are challenged for all sorts of reasons that make no sense at all. All this is without cause as none of these considerations would ever afford cause. If the problem is looked at straight in the eye, some Members of the Committee may well think that in this day and age it is an insult to the jurors who serve in the system which I so greatly revere and admire.
As to the problems of ethnic minorities as explained in particular by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—and it requires no repetition—that really is not the point. The extant right to challenge three without cause goes nowhere near causing any form of anxiety or allaying anxiety in that regard. What possible justification is there for the retention of this anachronism which made sense in Blackstone's day?
On objective analysis, having listened to what has been said in this Committee, I can find none. The only justification is that it is a long-standing custom, but that is an argument which, so to speak, devours its own tail, because, if you have to justify, you cannot justify by saying that it exists if you cannot find a reasoned justification for its existence. It is wholly inappropriate, as some Members of the Committee may think, to seek to equate the stand by for the Crown, as explained with authority by my noble and learned friend Lord Havers, with the peremptory challenge. The use to which each is put—one for the
836
purposes of state, the other for the purposes of seeking to select the jury that the accused believes is more likely to acquit—renders any equation of no true comparable effect. For those reasons—and I hope they are reasons because I accept one has to justify change to show that there is no unfairness to the accused—I hope that the Committee will accept that Clause 107 should stand part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Benson: I hope that Clause 107 will stand part of the Bill, and I say so for four reasons. I cannot speak with the skill and knowledge of so many members of the legal profession who are steeped in the law. I speak only as a layman but I have the advantage of having studied the evidence which came before the Roskill Committee.
The four reasons are these. First, it is an anachronism. In olden days, according to the evidence put before us, jurors were chosen from the same village as the accused. They would know whether he was innocent or guilty and at that time the accused could not speak for himself or be represented by counsel. Under those conditions it was only right that the accused should have a large number of peremptory challenges so that he could select those who were to sit in judgment upon him.
Since then, and it has been so for over 100 years, the whole purpose of jury service has changed. Juries are intended to be independent and impartial and it is not for the accused to decide who should sit in judgment upon him. In those olden times, as has already been said, the accused was entitled to 35 peremptory challenges, reduced to 20 in the year 1509, to seven in 1948 and three in 1977. It is high time that this old-fashioned anachronism should be swept away in the same way as many of the other outmoded practices of our criminal courts.
Secondly, an accused person has the right to challenge for cause. If he can find a good reason he has only to bring it before the court and, provided it is a good reason, his request will be acceded to. But when he cannot find any good reason, when he has run out of good reasons, a most extraordinary situation arises. Under those conditions he is given three bisques which he is entitled to use capriciously and irresponsibly. He has not the slightest knowledge about the persons against whom he exercises his bisques, nor yet about those who take their place. Any such procedure invites ridicule and violates common sense.
Thirdly, as has been said in this Committee tonight and as was said on Second Reading, peremptory challenge entitles the accused to redress the balance of age, race or sex on the jury. As I understand the law, the jury system is intended to be by selection at random. It is intended that jurors make their decision on the basis of the facts put before them. It cannot be right that an accused person, by the capricious exercise of his bisques, should be able to find someone who is prepared to be influenced by emotion to give a judgment based on his age or the colour of his skin and who will be favourably inclined towards him in the jury room. If Parliament wants a particular balance on juries of age, race, sex, colour, creed or

837
class, let Parliament decide what that balance shall be. It cannot be for an accused person to decide to redress the balance by the capricious use of bisques.
Fourthly, the system is blatantly and flagrantly abused. I should like to recall to the Committee one passage from the Roskill Report:
"Our evidence shows that the public, press and many legal practitioners now believe that this ancient right is abused cynically and systematically to manipulate cases towards a desired result".
Those are strong words, and I hope the Committee will take note of them.
In a fraud case any potential juror who turns up neatly dressed with a copy of The Times under his or her arm will be subject to peremptory challenge. The reason is that the accused or his counsel prefer to have on the jury people who are not sophisticated and those who are unlikely to understand the complex issues at stake. The accused or his counsel usually try to have teenagers for the same reason. Then, by rhetoric and extravagant prolixity, counsel so confuses the issue that the jurors do not understand the case and acquit accordingly.
There is the other type of abuse which is also practised. I cannot be sure of the precise numbers, but the facts were clearly given to us by the Roskill Committee. It was, I think, a case of 18 persons who were accused of a picketing affray during an industrial strike. The lawyers for the accused searched through all the addresses of the potential jurors. By their 54 bisques they then excluded from the jury any juror unless his home address was adjacent to one of the accused. The object was that the jurors would know and possibly be friendly towards the accused and perhaps work with them cheek by jowl at the pits every day of the week. If we in this country believe in law and order these ancient anachronisms and squalid devices which have been adopted should he eradicated from our procedures.
Lord Ackner: Any debate which concerns altering trial by jury is bound to give rise to strong feelings. I have no doubt that when some 20 years ago we debated abolishing unanimity among jurors, there was more rhetoric than we have heard this evening. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, who is always quoted as being an authority on nearly everything, wrote some 10 years before that debate that it would be very wrong for a jury's unanimity to go. My noble friend Lord Hutchinson, in his anxiety to espouse the Scottish system, would not, I believe, accept the majority of eight to seven which they have in Scotland.
The right to challenge is a tactical weapon in the armoury of counsel. That is not an observation from a "safe old age on the Bench", assuming that I have reached that stage. It is an argument put forward on 27th April this year by my noble friend Lord Wigoder, who said:
"I could have found it difficult to accept that in exercising the right of peremptory challenge defendants are necessarily seeking to secure a balanced jury. I think most defendants—and it is the defendent who has the right to challenge, not counsel—if they were asked what they were doing when their barrister on their instructions made the challenge, would he somewhat startled if it were suggested that it was in order to secure a balanced jury. Of course it is not. They are doing it in order to secure the most favourable jury possible; and there is nothing wrong with that under our present system". [Official Report, 27/4/87; col. 1334.]
838
They were tactics which were strongly advised against. In the same debate, my noble friend Lord Hooson said:
"I was brought up on a circuit—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Elwyn-Jones were my mentors—where it was thought"—
I emphaise this—
"tactically unwise to challenge without cause unless one was absolutely certain it was necessary". [Official Report, 27/4/87; col. 1291.]
As the Committee knows, I share many of the qualities, some good and some bad, of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, and one of them is that we are members of the same circuit—the Western Circuit. I am sure that he will agree with me that if we had been in any trouble in the days when we were practising, we would have gone to the best defending advocate—present company of course disregarded—namely, to Norman Skelhorn, later Sir Norman Skelhorn, Director of Public Prosecutions. He made it a firm rule never to challenge because he reckoned that it was thoroughly bad tactics.
Anecdotes are permitted to the anecdotage. I may perhaps be allowed to give one example. I was trying a blackmail case at the Winchester Assizes. A young, apparently well educated, well dressed man was challenged off the jury. In his place there came a shy, demure, self-effacing, timid, middle-aged lady. She might have been the half-sister of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson, if he had a half-sister, and she took his place. The jury was out precisely 20 minutes. It brought in a conviction, delivered with a smile on her face by the lady who had replaced the educated young man.
We have in this place recently abolished one tactical manoeuvre that counsel were able—quite properly, because the law so provided—to employ; namely, to attack, right, left and centre, the prosecution witnesses, and then, so that the jury would not know the nature of the character of the attacker—the defendant—to allow him to make a long statement from the dock so that he could not be cross-examined and so that his record could not be brought out. We have got rid of that. They were out-of-date tactics which were unnecessary.
A little earlier we got rid of the ability of defending counsel—perfectly properly, because it was then permissible—to keep the defendant's alibi up his sleeve until the very last moment, and then to spring it on the prosecution, which had no time, even though it might have a short adjournment, to check up on that alibi. No doubt all those moves towards bringing our criminal law up to date were strongly contested. I respectfully suggest that this is an out-of-date, wasteful, tactical weapon in the armoury of the defence and that it is high time we saw the back of it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The ultimate justification for juries is that the public trust the jury, and ultimately only the jury, in decisions affecting the liberty of any member of the public. We respect and trust our judges, but in criminal trials we trust our juries equally. When all is said and done, the justification for jury trial is that the public have confidence in that

839
part of the system of justice on which the liberty of the subject depends, which is why the judges share that part of the system of justice with the people.
Surely the justification for the defence's right of peremptory challenge is identical to the justification for jury trial itself. It is rooted in public confidence in the administration of justice. A principle of justice is that justice must be seen to be done. The public must see it as justice. Public confidence in the administration of criminal justice is strengthened by the defendant having an absolute right to say no, even to as few as three jurors about whom he feels, on sight, unhappy.
My belief in physiognomy is somewhat less than 100 per cent. I might have tended to agree with Duncan had I been there when he said to Malcolm:
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face".
Many who are not irrational think that they can tell a good deal from appearance. If one is black and there seem to be too many whites on the jury; if one is a woman and there seem to be too many men on the jury; and if one is poor and there seem to be too many better-off people on the jury, then the right to say no to three of them must increase confidence in the jury. True it is—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made the point very well—that it has a limited, if any, material influence on the composition of the jury. It does not create a balanced jury, but it increases confidence in the administration of justice.
If the Minister is impressed by what came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the right course may be to take away this clause and think of fashioning a system along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord which would make for the creation of a balanced jury in a way that gives greater confidence. Nor, as the Minster has said, is the right of the prosecution limited to saying no to three without cause. It has the right to say no to literally any number of available jurors without cause until what is called the panel is exhausted. Only after that is the Crown obliged to show cause for saying no to any juror. There is already an imbalance in the law in favour of the prosecution. That imbalance becomes absolute if the right of the defendant to three peremptory challenges is abolished.
I know the argument is that the right of peremptory challenge cuts across what is described as the principle of random selection, but that argument assumes that legal tradition favoured such a principle and denied peremptory challenge. Not so, as we have heard: peremptory challenge has been with us since the 16th century. I suppose it could be said that the right of peremptory challenge is administratively inconvenient once jurors who have been sent away nave to be replaced. Some of them, I suppose, could be embarrassed or even offended. But those are minor considerations and a small price to pay for confidence in the system. Anyway, there is great administrative inconvenience in standing by for the Crown.
There is only one real new point of any substance, but its importance is greatly exaggerated. It is that in multi-handed defences in London the right may sometimes be abused so that, in the theoretical example which the noble and learned Lord, Lord
840
Denning, gave, 10 defendants could remove 30 jurors. That problem arises in practice in a few cases in London and perhaps occasionally elsewhere in the South-East. It is not a problem elsewhere in the country. I look forward to hearing the Minister make, if he can, some attempt to quantify the alleged problem which has brought forth this remedy. Criminal practitioners to whom I have spoken tell me that it is of rare occurrence and confined to the parts of the country that I have mentioned.
For my part, I am therefore unpersuaded that the case is made out for any legislative change. But, if there is such a case, surely the change should be proportionate to the problem. It could, for example, be laid down that in multi-handed cases—the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, touched on such a possibility—there should be a maximum number of challenges—say, six and nine. That would meet the problem, if there were any problem. However, as so often occurs, this Government bring forward a change to the law which is disproportionate, one-sided and unfair.
For my part, I shall oppose this change on the one-sided basis on which it is brought forward, because I believe in the jury system and in public confidence in the fair and equal administration of justice. If it is necessary to retain the Crown's rights for the reason advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers—and I think it is—then surely fairness requires that the present rights of the defence should remain, unless and until a wholly new system of ensuring balanced juries can be brought before Parliament for its consideration.
The Earl of Caithness: This has been a most useful and stimulating debate in which six noble and learned Lords have taken part. Four QCs have taken part; and, although the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that all those at the coal face were against Clause 107, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is very much at the coal face and can give the noble Lord a year or two, I have discovered.
Before I concentrate on the detail of whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill, I should like to place the Government's proposal in a rather broader context. The sovereign importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system has been a thread running through the Committee's deliberations on the Bill. We have discussed proposals to strengthen the law by providing additional powers for the courts to order the confiscation of offenders' assets and to impose heavier penalties for certain offences which cause public concern. We have considered at length and in a debate of, if I may say so, exceptional quality, measures to improve confidence in the sentences passed for the most serious crimes. I shall shortly be inviting Members of the Committee to consider proposals to give better protection against violent young people who carry knives. In Clause 107, I ask the Committee to give its attention to the question of public confidence in the jury system, which I believe needs strengthening in this respect.
The jury is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is founded on the principle that the jury should be drawn as randomly as possible from those adult

841
members of the community who are able to serve. Parliament has been ready in recent history to widen the pool from which jurors may he drawn. The use of the electoral register gives the broadest possible base for selection. I shall invite your Lordships in Clause 108 to take this process a step further by allowing people of 65 to 70 years of age to serve as jurors if they are able and willing to do so. Conversely, Parliament has been slow to exclude people from consideration as jurors. The list of those who are ineligible for service, or disqualified, or excusable as of right, is tightly drawn. Within this framework, which Parliament created and which I believe is widely respected, the survival of the right of peremptory challenge is an oddity, an anachronism.
Noble Lords have said very rightly that the right of peremptory challenge is an ancient one and should not be removed from our law without the most careful consideration. I have no doubt that for centuries it was a most necessary and desirable device. The jury panel used to be drawn from a quite limited section of the population and generally from a smaller community than nowadays. The defendant was liable to extremely severe penalties, including death and transportation, for offences which we would now consider not very serious. But, as law and practice changed, the need for the protection afforded by the right of peremptory challenge diminished. Parliament has acknowledged this over the years by reducing the number of challenges available to the defendant. In 1948, therefore, it was reduced from 20 to seven challenges. In 1977 it was further reduced to three. I believe we can now say that the defendant no longer needs the protection of peremptory challenge at all. His right to challenge jurors for a specific cause—which he may do on any number of occasions—enables him to remove any juror who might be unfairly disposed against him because of, for example, a personal quarrel.
Not only is the right of peremptory challenge unnecessary; it is positively harmful. Members have argued from differing points of view about whether the right of peremptory challenge is abused. I am not the person to say that the right of peremptory challenge is abused, but I am very glad to follow the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on this point. In the debates in this Chamber on the 1977 Criminal Law Bill the noble Lord made the point very cogently that use of a right does not constitute abuse. However, it is worthy of note that the interpretation of the noble Lord is different from that of his noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who felt at that time that the right was abused. Today we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that it is in fact still abused.
I suggest that the existence of this right provides a potential for distortion of the jury which I believe may have adverse effects on justice. Cases in which several co-defendants pool their challenges in order to remove large numbers of jurors underline this most vividly, but I am not concerned solely or even primarily with multi-defendant cases. It is on the principle of the matter that I believe we should concentrate our attention.
842
It seems to me that noble Lords who have argued against our proposals have based their case on two propositions. The first is that peremptory challenge is an important safeguard for the defendant. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that we should dispel from our minds the origins and history of peremptory challenge and that it was for the advocates of change to demonstrate that peremptory challenge was not an important safeguard. My answer to that is twofold. In the first place, I do not see how something so arbitrary as peremptory challenge can be a safeguard for the accused. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that peremptory challenge was used to achieve an unprejudiced jury. But how can it have that effect? I have heard nothing in the eloquent speeches we have listened to this afternoon to demonstrate convincingly that peremptory challenge is a vital safeguard.
Secondly, I do not believe that we can so lightly disregard the history of the matter. The jury system, no more than any of our most treasured institutions, is neither static nor fossilised. It has evolved over time to meet changing needs, and it continues to do so. The system as it exists now would be unrecognisable to those who lived in earlier centuries. For example, one's impression is that the jury has moved from something intimate and local, with, in the 17th and 18th centuries, something of a premium being put on the jurors being known to the accused, to the much more anonymous system that we have now, expecially in the large cities.
The present notion of challenge for cause as applying only where there is a real likelihood of prejudice and with no opportunity for the accused to question jurors without first showing cause has developed over the centuries in striking contrast to the way in which the American jury system has developed over the same period. Peremptory challenge has been reduced, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Benson, from 35 challenges per defendant in the 16th century to the present three. Most recently, and perhaps most dramatically of all, the pool from which jurors are drawn was massively expanded in 1974, with a shift from a property qualification to the electoral roll as the basis for jury service.
I mention these changes to illustrate two points. First, the jury system is not a fossil; it changes and is changeable and would be the poorer if it were not. Secondly, if there be a logical thread running through these changes it is the broadening of the popular base of the jury and the recognition, almost as a corollary of that, that, as the jury becomes more fully representative of the community, it is reasonable to expect the defendant to take it as he finds it save where he can demonstrate cause.
The second main argument advanced by those Members who spoke against the clause boiled down to the fact that peremptory challenge is a right that the defendant enjoys to make the jury more representative of his interests; and in particular because it is unfair to the black defendant to be confronted by an all-white jury. This is an important matter. I strongly believe that we should do all we can to ensure that the ethnic minorities have full confidence in our system of criminal justice.

843
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham have reminded us, peremptory challenge is simply a mechanism which removes people from the jury and cannot guarantee a jury superficially more appropriate to the defendant's concerns.
To defend peremptory challenge on the argument that there should be some means by which the jury would be made more representative of the defendant's background and interests therefore seems to me, with great respect to the noble and learned Lords, to attribute to it a function which it does not have and which could only be created through a radical change in the whole system of selection. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has described this approach as jury engineering, and it is an apt phrase. There is a logical case for jury engineering. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, reminded us of the Lord Chief Justice in Ireland known as "Peter the Packer". When he was asked why he had to pack the juries he said, "It was the only way I could get a conviction".
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: So it was.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Although that was true at the time, as my noble and learned friend reminds us, surely that is not applicable in this country. That is an argument we cannot accept. There is a logical case for taking the jury as one finds it but there is no logical case for peremptory challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has not moved his amendment under which the number of challenges permitted per defendant would be progressively reduced for cases where there were more than three defendants. However, as it has been alluded to perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I say a word about it now. A sliding scale of the kind proposed by the noble Lord would indeed limit the mischief which could be wrought by a large number of defendants. That is a worthy aim. But however we may juggle with numbers it does not answer the question why it should be right at all to allow the defence to challenge a juror without cause.
The sliding scale approach itself raises issues of principle. If peremptory challenge is a valuable right of the individual, as some noble Lords have asserted, how can it be argued that some defendants have a greater right than others? A person with two codefendants could challenge up to three jurors. If he had three co-defendants he would have no more than two challenges. If he had seven co-defendants he would have only one challenge. That may be all very well for him if his interests are identical to those of his co-defendants. They can make common cause by pooling their challenges.
However, we cannot and must not assume that that will always be the case. Sometimes one of a number of co-defendants will have very different interests—for example, if he has co-operated with the police. Perhaps more important, it would be curious to say the least to construct the system in such a way as positively to encourage the pooling of challenges, which is one of the more unattractive features of current practice.
844
I have listened carefully to the debate this evening but it does not seem to me that those noble Lords who oppose Clause 107 have shaken the fundamental logic of our proposal that, challenge for cause apart, the defendant should be ready to take the jury as he finds it. Why should he be able to remove jurors without any reason given? If it is to achieve a particular balance of the jury then peremptory challenge is a poor and ineffectual tool and something much more elaborate is required. In the Government's view it is not only offensive to the people who give up their time for jury service to be peremptorily dismissed; it is wrong in principle. Peremptory challenge, valuable as it may have been as a safeguard in times gone by, has outlived its usefulness.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think I am entitled to make a few observations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I think not.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am sorry, but I have taken advice from where it should come—from the Table.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: We always like to hear from the noble and learned Lord, but I thought that we were on the Question that the clause stand part; and that being so it is not as if an amendment had been moved.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I took advice and was advised that it was proper for me to make some observations. We have been at it long enough and I shall speak only for a moment or two.
What we have tonight is a one-sided decision to do away with the citizen's right to challenge but to keep the Crown's right to challenge indefinitely and in any numbers it chooses. It is a piece of inequality that is unworthy of this Chamber. What we are asked to do tonight is to diminish an ancient and important right of the defendant, of the citizen, in the courts. I hope that once again this noble Chamber will exercise its traditional care for the interest of the subject by rejecting this abominable proposal.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Auckland, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnock, L.

Belstead, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Benson, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Borthwick, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

845

Denning, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Dundee, E.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elton, L

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Portland, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Roskill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Salisbury, M.

Havers, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayter, L.

Sandford, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hesketh. L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Holderness, L.

Sharples, B.

Hood, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hooper, B.

Sherfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Slim, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Trafford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon. L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hooson, L. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Birk, B.

Hunt, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Bottomley, L.

Hylton, L.

Brockway, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jay, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Longford, E.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkender, B.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Meston, L.

Foot, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mishcon, L.

Galpern, L.

Molloy, L.

Grimond, L.

Monson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Mulley, L.

Heycock, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

846

Nicol, B.

Sloddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Scanlon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Secar, B.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Shacklelon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

White, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 107 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: The Committee may feel that we have reached a suitable moment to break. We shall return to the subject in one hour's time, at 8.15. 1 beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.15 until 8.15 p.m.]
On Question, Whether Clauses 108 to 110 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wigoder: I should like to say a few words in respect of Clause 110. As I understand the matter, this clause was not in the original Bill when it was first produced many months ago. I then tabled an amendment to that Bill, which included this clause (now Clause 110) and which also included Amendment No. 217 with which we shall shortly deal. I therefore desire to claim the credit for Clause 110, as it now stands, because it follows the wording of the amendment that I tabled originally. I do so not in order to obtain credit but to establish my credentials when I move Amendment No. 217.
The Earl of Caithness: We always look with great care at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in the Official Report. I am delighted that we have been able to include Clause 110 for him.
Clauses 108 to 110 agreed to.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 216:
After Clause 110, insert the following new clause:
("Power to defer Jury service.
.—(1) In section 9(1) of the Juries Act 1974, after "attending" there shall he added the words "or his service has been deferred".
(2) In section 9(2) of that Act, after the words "from attending" there shall be added the words "or that his service should he deferred", and after the words "from so attending" there shall be added the words "or defer his service for not less than a period to be stated".
(3) In section 9(3) of that Act, after "him" there shall be added the words "or defer his service".
(4) In section 9(4) of that Act there shall he added at the end the words "or defer his service for not less than a period to he stated".").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is a practical contribution to our discussions. I drafted it and therefore I accept at once that the drafting is faulty. The Minister need not trouble to say that when he replies.
As the position stands at the moment, if a person is summoned for jury service under Section 9 of the Juries Act 1974, he either undertakes his jury service or is exempt from his obligation to attend. He can apply to be exempt from that obligation on any ground if there is good reason. The usual reason is that holidays are coming up, but there may be other reasons such as the fact that he owns a small business and his manager is away for a period or whatever.
In those circumstances, as I understand Section 9 of the 1974 Act, if a person summoned shows that there is good reason to be excused from attending, the appropriate officer (under subsection (2) of the Act) or the court (under subsection (4)) can excuse that person from attending. In other words, the appropriate officer or the court has the alternative of saying, "No, you must attend", or, "You are exempt from attending".
Because of the large register that now exists jury service comes round comparatively rarely; in some areas it may be every five or 10 years. The position is therefore that if a person is to be on holiday when he is called for jury service he either serves in his turn or he is exempt from attending. In that case it may be another five or 10 years before he is called again.
In what I accept is probably inadequate drafting, the clause attempts to give the appropriate officer or the court an additional power; namely, that of saying, "Yes, we accept your excuse this time. You need not come but you will report for jury service next time", in three months' time, or whatever it may be. It seems to me that that would be fairer and a power that would be appreciated by the courts and the appropriate officers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has argued persuasively for explicit provision in the Juries Act for deferment of jury service. I am glad to say that I can accept his amendments in principle. I cannot accept the amendments quite as they stand because I do not think it is necessarily right to provide the deferment of the service of those who are entitled to excusal as the amendment of the noble Lord would do. I should also like to consider the question of whether some time remit for the period of deferment should be provided.
That said, I agree with the noble Lord that deferment is a sensible and convenient device for ensuring that potential jurors whose names are drawn and who are willing to serve are not prevented from doing so by some temporary impediment. If the noble Lord is content to proceed in that way, I shall be happy to discuss with him a form of words that could be tabled on Report. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigoder: When I have recovered from my surprise I shall say to the Minister that I am most grateful for his remarks. I accept his offer most gratefully and shall be happy to co-operate in any way that I can. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 217:
Insert the following new clause:
("Power of judge to try preliminary issue without jury.
In any trial on indictment on which either of the following issues is raised—

(a) whether the defendant is mute of malice or by visitation of God, or

(b) whether the defendant is fit to plead,

it shall he for the judge, without presence of a jury, to decide the issue.").
The noble Lord said: This provision might be described as the other half of Clause 110 which the Committee approved a short time ago. The amendment proposes that certain preliminary proceedings, which at the moment are tried by a judge and jury, in fact are more appropriately tried by a judge alone. Those proceedings fall into two categories. First, under (a) of the proposed new clause, it is suggested that the issue of whether a defendant is mute of malice or by visitation of God should be tried by judge alone and not by a jury. I apologise for using such archaic legal expressions.
The present procedure is, I believe, that if a defendant does not speak in the dock when he is asked to speak, the jury has to be sworn in, not in order to try him but to try the single issue of whether his silence is because he is mute of malice (in other words, he refuses to speak because he is bloody-minded) or whether he is mute by visitation of God, namely, that he is dumb as a result of some natural ailment.
The consequences of the distinction in our law are, somewhat surprisingly, very substantial. I think I am right in saying that if a person is found by the jury to be mute of malice the judge then directs that a plea of not guilty should be entered and the trial proceeds under a different jury. Somewhat curiously, I understand that if the defendant is found to be mute by visitation of God, he is found unfit to plead and is carried off to some institution for the rest of his life—a very odd fate to befall someone who may be innocent but who happens to be dumb as a result of some natural ailment. So the issue that the jury has to determine is an odd one and it must be determined on the evidence that is called before it.
Other members of the committee who have practised at the bar have indulged in anecdotes this evening. Perhaps I, too, can offer an anecdote to illustrate what I think is the absurdity of the way in which these issues are tried at the moment. Some years ago, in a trial at the Old Bailey involving three alleged members of the IRA, I defended the third defendant in the list. All three defendants decided to ignore the court. The first was asked, "Are you guilty or not guilty?", to which question he simply shook his head. So the judge, who was a very wise old bird, said to him, "Well, will it be all right if I enter a plea of not guilty?" The first defendant said, yes, that would be fine.
Having heard the Irishman speak, the judge felt that it was all right; he was clearly mute of malice, and a plea of not guilty was entered. The same question, "Are you guilty or not guilty?", was asked of the second Irishman, who shook his head. The judge asked, "May I enter a plea of not guilty?" "Yes, certainly" said the Irishman. So the judge entered a plea of not guilty, and that was fine.
The third defendant, my client, was very much wiser than the other two defendants. Asked whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty, he shook his head. The judge then said, "Shall I enter a plea of not guilty in your case?" and the defendant simply turned his back to the judge and spat on the floor. So, for the only time in my experience a jury had to he empanelled to decide whether this particular defendant—the third Irishman—was mute of malice or mute by visitation of God.
As the jury was being sworn in for that purpose and upon reaching the eighth juror, the Irishman turned round in the dock and said, "Your Honour, have I the right to challenge any of these jurors?" There was nothing we could do except complete the empanelling of those 12 jurors. The prosecution then faced the absurdity of having to call a police officer to say that he had heard this man speak a few minutes ago when quite clearly everyone else in the court had also heard him. The judge then had to direct the jury as to the law, to sum up as to the facts and to ask the jury to deliver their verdict as to whether the defendant was mute of malice or mute by visitation of God. That was a manifest absurdity.
I venture to think that there is a case for saying that the judge alone should try that preliminary issue rather than continuing with such an archaic procedure—and we are becoming rather good at producing archaisms this evening—of swearing in a jury especially for that purpose.
The other half of this proposed new clause is perhaps a rather more difficult matter; namely, the proposal that it should be for the judge alone and not a jury to decide whether a defendant is fit to plead—in other words, whether there is a serious issue raised as to whether or not the defendant is mentally capable of following the proceedings. Those issues inevitably involve very substantial expert evidence called on both sides. Such evidence is extremely difficult for laymen to judge and is much more appropriate for a judge to decide upon. In those circumstances I hope that the Government will take the view that those two proposals in relation to preliminary issues supplement the other two proposals that the Government have already accepted in Clause 110. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has proposed that the judge rather than the jury should determine whether a defendant is mute of malice or by visitation of God. I understand the reasons he has given for bringing the proposal before the Committee. I fully appreciate that it may be distressing for, say, a mentally handicapped defendant to have to appear before a jury so that this issue may be determined. I understand also why it may seem a waste of time to trouble a jury with such an apparently straightforward matter. While I understand these arguments, I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Lord to the same conclusion. I believe that it is important that we maintain the principle that it is essentially for the jury to determine the facts. That is the normal basis on which the law operates. In the complicated case cited by the noble Lord it would seem logical for the jury rather than the judge to have to determine the solution to that problem and other problems that it faces.
850
I well understand that cases in which fitness to plead is at issue are rare, and, although reasonably clear cut on many occasions, are often cases that are very serious where the involvement of a jury rather than a single judge is desirable. However, in view of the noble Lord's remarks, I think that this is something I should like to read and have a further look at. Obviously it is something that I should like to discuss with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and indeed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane.
Lord Wigoder: I am grateful for those observations. I make it clear that these are not amendments in any event that I would seek to press. They are suggestions put forward in case they appear to be acceptable to the Government as a modest means of shortening some of our complex trial procedures. I am happy to ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 [Restrictions on the imposition of custodial sentences on offenders under 21]:
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 217A:
Leave out Clause 111 and insert the following new clause:
("Custodial sentences for young offenders.
.—(1) Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 shall be amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (5) below.
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3) of section 1.—
"(3A) Subject to section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (Punishment of certain grave crimes), the only custodial orders that a court may make where a person under 21 years of age is convicted or found guilty of an offence are—

(a) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution under section 1A below; and

(b) a sentence of custody for life under section 8 below."

(3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (4) of that section—
"(4) A court may not—

(a) pass a sentence of detention in a young offender institution; or

(b) pass a sentence of custody for life under section 8(2) below, unless it is satisfied—

(i) that the circumstances, including the nature and the gravity of the offence, are such that if the offender were aged 21 or over the court would pass a sentence of imprisonment; and

(ii) that he qualifies for a custodial sentence.

(4A) An offender qualifies for a custodial sentence if—

(a) he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them; or

(b) only a custodial sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him; or

(c) the offence of which he has been convicted or found guilty was so serious that a non-custodial sentence for it cannot be justified."

(4) The following sections shall be inserted after section 1—
"Detention in a young offender institution.
1A.—(1) Subject to section 8 below and to section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, where—

(a) a male offender under 21 but not less than 14 years of age or a female offender under 21 but not less than 15 years of age is convicted of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over; and

(b) the court is satisfied of the matters referred to in section 1(4) above,

the sentence that the court is to pass is a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.
(2) Subject to section 1 B(1) and (2) below, the maximum term of detention in a young offender institution that a court may impose for an offence is the same as the maximum term of imprisonment that it may impose for that offence.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below and section 18(3) below, a court shall not pass a sentence for an offender's detention in a young offender institution whose effect would be that he would be sentenced to a total term of less than 21 days.
(4) A court may pass a sentence of detention in a young offender institution for less than 21 days for an offence under section 15(11) below.
(5) Subject to section 1 B(4) below, where—

(a) an offender is convicted of more than one offence for which he is liable to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution; or

(b) an offender who is serving a sentence of detention in a young offender institution is convicted of one or more further offences for which he is liable to such a sentence,

the court shall have the same power to pass consecutive sentences of detention in a young offender institution as if they were sentences of imprisonment.
(6) Where an offender who—

(a) is serving a sentence of detention in a young offender institution; and

(b) is aged over 21 years,

is convicted of one or more further offences for which he is liable to imprisonment, the court shall have the power to pass one or more sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively upon the sentence of detention in a young offender institution.
Special provision for offenders under 17.
1B.—(1) In the case of a male offender under 15 the maximum term of detention in a young offender institution that a court may impose is whichever is the lesser of—

(a) the maximum term of imprisonment the court may impose for the offence; and

(b) 4 months.

(2) In the case of an offender aged 15 or 16 the maximum term of detention in a young offender institution that a court may impose is whichever is the lesser of—

(a) the maximum term of imprisonment the court may impose for the offence; and

(b) 12 months.

(3) Where an offender is a female under 17 a court shall not pass a sentence for her detention in a young offender institution whose effect would be that she would be sentenced to a total term of four months or less.
(4) A court shall not pass a sentence of detention in a young offender institution on an offender whose effect would be that the offender would be sentenced to a total term which exceeds—

(a) if the offender is male and under 15, 4 months; and

(b) if the offender is aged 15 or 16, 12 months.

(5) Where the total term of detention in a young offender institution to which an offender is sentenced exceeds—

(a) in the case of a male offender under 15, 4 months; and

(b) in the case of an offender aged 15 or 16, 12 months,

so much of the term as exceeds 4 or 12 months, as the case may be, shall be treated as remitted.
(6) In this section "total term" means—

(a) in the case of an offender sentenced (whether or not on the same occasion) to two or more terms of detention in a young offender institution which are consecutive or wholly or partly concurrent, the aggregate of those terms;

(b) in the case of any other offender, the term of the sentence of detention in a young offender institution in question."

(5) The following subsection shall be substituted for section 2(4)—
"(4) Where—

(a) the Crown Court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution or a sentence of custody for life under section 8(2) below, or

(b) a magistrates' court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,

it shall be its duty—

(i) to state in open court that it is satisfied that he qualifies for a custodial sentence under one or more of the paragraphs of section 1(3) above, the paragraph or paragraphs in question and why it is so satisfied; and

852

(ii) to explain to the offender in open court and in ordinary language why it is passing a custodial sentence on him.".

(6) The amendments and transitional provisions in Schedule [Custodial sentences for young offenders] to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Earl said: It may be convenient for the Committee if we discuss with Amendment No. 217A Amendments Nos. 218ZA, 218A, 255A, 258A, 258B, 259A, 260A, 265A, 271A, 273A, 273B and 273C. It might also be convenient if we consider at this point Amendment No. 220 in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, which deals with very similar matters. In the light of this debate, I hope that when we come to that point in the Marshalled List my noble friend may be willing not to move her amendment. The purpose of this group of amendments is to amalgamate the two existing custodial sentences for young offenders. I mentioned during our debate on Second Reading that we were giving active consideration to that possibility. We have since decided to adopt it. The amendments are the result.
It might help to set the scene for our debate if I started with a word about the Government's general philosophy on the use of custody for young offenders. First, we are in no doubt that custodial sentences are necessary for the most serious and persistent young offenders. I am aware that my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the exceedingly lively pressure group which she chairs, New Approaches to Juvenile Crime, have recently argued that custody for those aged under 17 should be phased out altogether.
I must say to her frankly that I cannot share that view and I do not believe that the vast majority of people do either. Too much crime is committed by those in their teens. Too much of it is too serious. The thug aged 14, 15 or 16 is not a pretty sight and should, if he has committed a sufficiently serious crime or crimes, be sent to prison if the courts think fit. But I agree with my noble friend that there is a serious question about whether the use of custody for young people should be sparing or liberal. On that the Government have no doubt where they stand. A custodial sentence is the most severe sanction available to the courts. It is particularly severe for the young. Youth is a time when family and community ties are most precious. Young people are impressionable. Perhaps most important, research findings suggest that for many young people crime is a passing phase. The courts should, and for the most part do, reflect long and hard before concluding that a custodial sentence is inevitable.
The Government have sought to encourage the sparing use of custody in a number of ways. We have tried to keep young people out of the courts altogether for as long as possible by encouraging the greater and more consistent use of the police caution. To take just one example, the number of 14 to 17 year-old boys cautioned for indictable offences as a proportion of all those cautioned or convicted increased from 35 per cent. in 1981 to 55 per cent. in 1986.
We have encouraged the development of demanding alternatives to custody. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 strengthens the powers of the courts to attach specific requirements to supervision and probation orders. Under that statutory umbrella, social services departments, the probation service

853
and a variety of voluntary bodies have developed a range of schemes, particularly for juveniles. Our colleagues in the DHSS have helped the development of intensive intermediate treatment schemes with direct financial support.
While the overall effect of these measures may be a matter of debate, what is not in doubt in that the use of custody for juveniles, if not for young adults, has fallen quite sharply in recent years. The number of juveniles receiving immediate custodial sentences has fallen from 7,900 in 1981 to 4,500 in 1986, the lowest for 10 years. This is relevant to our proposals in ways which I shall explain in a moment.
The second limb of our policy on custody for young offenders relates to the quality of the custodial experience itself. The emphasis has been on a brisk regime for those serving the shortest terms and a greater emphasis on training and development for those serving longer terms. That is no more than sensible. It is a distinction which was made in our White Paper on young offenders as long ago as 1980. But as anyone will know who has visited detention centres and youth custody centres in recent years, as I have, it is inevitably an oversimplification. In the detention centres in particular, the experience of the tougher regime experiment in the early 1980s has been digested and built on. Features of that regime, including a disciplined and structured daily routine, can be found in the consistent regime, the introduction of which Mr Brittan as Home Secretary announced in 1984.
The White Paper which I have mentioned distinguished, as I said, between the regimes which would be necessary for those serving shorter and longer periods of custody. It concluded that the differences would be so great as to call for distinct court powers. It is that judgment which in the light of experience thus far of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 we now think should be revised. The Act achieved a considerable simplification of court powers. It abolished the intermediate sentence of Borstal training, together with youth imprisonment for young adults.
Broadly speaking, all custodial sentences are now determinate so that the court can impose the minimum sentence which it thinks adequately reflects the gravity of the offence. Again broadly speaking—because this is an area in which one has come to realise that there is bound to be an exception to anything one says—where the court decides on four months or less it must impose a detention centre order; more than four months, a youth custody sentence.
This was, as I say, a considerable rationalisation of sentencing powers. It has in itself contributed to a reduction in the use of custody, since average sentence lengths are lower than they were and the time spent on remand now counts towards sentence. But it has given rise to three problems.
The first is that the courts have not found the dual sentencing system altogether easy to operate. They are encouraged, quite rightly, to decide first what the length of the sentence should be and let the question of whether it is to be a detention centre order or a youth custody sentence flow from that. But presented with the appearance of a choice between two distinct
854
sentences, they would be less than human if they did not occasionally try to exercise it. The Magistrates' Association has represented to us very strongly that this creates undesirable ambiguity and does not assist good sentencing practice. A variety of other organisations, including New Approaches to Juvenile Crime, also favour the move to a single sentence.
The second problem, of which I have more direct experience, is this. The retention of two sentences adds to the pressures on the prisons. There is in Section 12 of the 1982 Act a complicated set of rules about where those receiving the two types of accommodation can be accommodated. The effect of these is to create inflexibility and under-use of accommodation in some parts of the system. At a time when we face such severe problems of overcrowding in prisons it makes no sense to retain inflexibilities of that kind.
The third problem is in a way one of success. Fewer custodial sentences mean fewer custodial establishments and for the detention centres in particular catchment areas have become far too large. This creates difficulty for family visits, escorting offenders to court, supervision arrangements and so on. Family ties are always important but are especially important for young offenders.
For those reasons we have decided that the time is ripe to move to a unified custodial sentence. This is described in the amendments before the Committee as a sentence of, "detention in a young offender institution", and it would replace the two existing sentences, the detention centre order and the youth custody sentence. I emphasise that point. because we are not abolishing one of the existing sentences but replacing both of them with an entirely new sentence. What one might describe as the coverage of custody would remain the same. The maximum term would for those aged between 17 and 20 be the maximum term of imprisonment if the offence had been committed by an adult. For those aged 15 and 16 the maximum total term would be 12 months; and for 14 year-old boys it would be four months. The minimum term would broadly speaking be three weeks, as it is now.
The revised restrictions on the use of custody, now in Clause 111, are also embodied in Amendment No. 217A. The new provision therefore replaces Clause 111 and was generally applauded in our debate last Thursday.
I should perhaps also draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 260A. This introduces a new guarantee that all juveniles given the new sentence will be held in young offender institutions except for purely temporary purposes. The amendment also does away with those provisions in Section 12 of the 1982 Act which guaranteed a youth custody place for all young offenders sentenced to between four and 18 months' youth custody. This guaranteed training band, as it came to be known, was thought important in 1982 because at that time not everyone sentenced to youth custody could necessarily be offered the training to be provided in youth custody centres. So the argument ran that at least those most likely to benefit from training should

855
be guaranteed a youth custody place. It was agreed that this group should comprise those sentenced to up to 18 months. Experience has shown, however, that sentence length is not necessarily a good predictor of suitability for training and that the guaranteed training band has introduced distortions into the system.
If I may give the Committee an example, a young offender may well be allocated to an available youth custody centre place because he is in the guaranteed training band, even if on conviction he has only a few weeks left to serve once time spent on remand has been taken into account. At the same time, someone with a longer sentence outside the guaranteed training band who would have been more likely to benefit from training in the youth custody centre would have to be denied a place there. The amendment will remove this kind of distortion and at the same time, as I have said, will guarantee that sentenced juveniles will not be held in adult establishments.
I should like to stress that our overall aim is to minimise the holding of young adults in prison. The introduction of the single sentence will enable us to have more young offenders in young offender establishments than is currently the case. Precisely how many will depend on the numbers to be sentenced, but I hope it will be possible to transfer anything up to 200 young offenders out of local prisons. This will have the added benefit of providing some welcome relief to the adult system. The other amendments, including the new schedule, are largely consequential and deal with such matters as transitional arrangements and the necessary amendments to other legislation.
It may assist the Committee if I outline how we see the new arrangements operating in practice. I mentioned earlier the distinction which the 1980 White Paper made between the regimes which will be feasible for those serving the longer and shorter terms respectively. That distinction seems to me as valid under a combined sentence as it was under two separate sentences.
We therefore envisage that those young offenders with relatively short periods to serve after sentence should experience the brisk, structured regime which has been developed in the detention centres. Those with longer to serve will experience a regime similar to that which is provided in the youth custody centres. Detailed plans are still to be made, but it seems likely to achieve the fullest use of the existing accommodation, as well as the reduction in catchment areas which we seek, we shall need to provide establishments different parts of which provide the different regimes. We shall also want to ensure that juveniles are accommodated, so far as possible, separately from young adults. Having visited a large number of young offender establishments I am myself persuaded that multipurpose institutions of that kind, with the various groups separated from each other, would be entirely feasible.
I have already spoken long enough. But this is an important change, and the Committee will want to give it due consideration. It is essentially a change in
856
sentencing powers, and should complete the rationalisation of these powers which was begun in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It should also bring great benefits, in terms of the more sensible use of custodial accommodation and some relief in prison overcrowding. On that basis, I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I rise to congratulate Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend the Minister on this amendment. It is one which those of us who work with juvenile delinquents have sought for many years. For about seven years we have been asking for the detention centres to be replaced, so that this comes as something which we very much welcome.
May I ask my noble friend the Minister three questions? First, is he not infringing the Sex Discrimination Act with the introduction of this unified custodial sentence? It is difficult to see any justification for maintaining sexual discrimination in the sentencing of 14 year-olds, whereby boys of this age can be sentenced to custody but 14 year-old girls cannot. It may have been possible to justify this when there were separate detention centres for males only, but can it be justified now that the single custodial sentence is likely to apply to both sexes?
Secondly, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether it would not have been possible to exclude 14 year-old boys and girls from the penal system. It seems to me that 14 is very much an age which ought to be cared for, perhaps in local authority children's homes under supervision orders, or alternatively in voluntary homes.
Thirdly, my noble friend the Minister has explained the question of the regime. Even for a short time, would it not be better to embark on a rehabilitative programme rather than, still, the short, sharp, shock programme? By the statistics and by experience, the short, sharp shock has never worked. Therefore why do we continue with it even for a short time? I say again that we welcome this amendment, which is a great step forward in the the treatment of juvenile delinquency.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt: From these Benches I very much welcome the decision by the Government to remove the distinction between two types of custodial order for young people. The need to remove that distinction is a very real and long-standing one. In particular—and here I support the noble Baroness—it is important to modify the treatment that is meted out to young people in detention centres under the so-called short, sharp shock. The consequence of that kind of treatment, in general, is not to make young people into reformed young citizens; it is to make them into budding young criminals; and it just does not work. The failure rate from detention centres has been for some time past of the order of 80 per cent.
Therefore when the noble Earl spoke of different regimes—and I quite appreciate that the regimes have to be different in that they are shorter for some and longer for others—I hope he did not have in mind a different kind of treatment in that sense. It is

857
quite essential that the treatment of young people should be persuasive, constructive and purposeful.
Finally, as a professional soldier for nearly 30 years—admittedly, some time in the past—I think I can say with some authority that the system of sending young soldiers into what was called the glasshouse in my time simply did not work. It did not have any reforming effect, except in a strictly physical sense. It did not make good soldiers into bad ones.
In conclusion, I heartily agree with the noble Earl that it is the job of the courts to determine—I hope I am right in this—the length of the sentence, and it is wrong to ask the courts to determine the kind of treatment that offenders will receive when they are sent into custody. So I welcome very much what the noble Earl has told us.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I similarly. It is a great pleasure to welcome what the noble Earl says from time to time. Let it not be thought that we are other than delighted when he says something of which we approve. Seriously, we approve and value this decision.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the welcome given to this amendment by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who speaks with great experience on these matters.
We gave considerable thought to this amendment and, as I have said, we saw it as an evolutionary process from the 1982 Act. My noble friend asked me three questions. If I may deal with the third one first, I think that one can defend the brisker regime because it provides much which is both positive and constructive. Much good work is already being done in detention centres, where staff have acquired considerable expertise in designing, for example, education modules and links with the community which are of considerable value to those with shorter sentences.
My noble friend mentioned the short, sharp shock. I was particularly interested when I first went to a junior detention centre to see what that meant. I was very pleasantly surprised because it was not the regime that I had been led to believe was the one that operated. 1 could sum it up by saying that I do not think that one can necessarily rehabilitate anyone in a prison establishment but one can give the opportunity for that person to rehabilitate himself and give the options which perhaps he or she has not had before on a firm basis.
My children are perhaps younger than those of other Committee Members. They are 10 and six years-old. I know how much they welcome the firmness as well as the caring side. Undoubtedly that is true of the slightly older generation that we are talking about who seem to respond to it. Certainly some of the young boys to whom I have talked have been very grateful for having a metaphorical solid wall off which to bounce. They are grateful to have someone there who is firm but caring. One can combine that with the brisk regime.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Is the noble Earl saying that a brisk regime is a euphemism for short, sharp shock?
858
If he is saying that in terms of his experience with his children of six and 10, it is an experience that most people would not share. The experience of the short, sharp shock is almost universally disastrous so we were hoping that the brisker regime would not be a euphemism for that but would mean a genuine change of course. Am I right in supposing that or not?
The Earl of Caithness: I thought I had explained that clearly. I apologise to the noble Lord if I did not make myself clear. I was saying that the brisk regime incorporates a lot of constructive work with a firmness attached thereto, which undoubtedly the 14, 15 and 16 year-olds need. 1 went on to talk about some of the expertise that had been acquired by staff in designing education models. That is far from the image which some people like to conjure up of what the short, sharp shock was.
Turning to 15 and 16 year-old girls, I repeat that our general approach has been to leave the coverage of custody unaltered. At present a 15 or 16 year-old girl can receive a youth custody sentence of between four and 12 months. The numbers are very small—they were only 61 in 1986—and it has never been possible to make satisfactory arrangements for girls serving short periods of custody. On the whole we thought that it was better to leave matters as they are but I should be glad to look at the point again in the light of what my noble friend has said.
Turning now to 14 year-old boys, it is true that these proposals deal differently with boys as compared with girls, although I do not believe that they offend against the Sex Discrimination Act. Our general approach in devising the new sentence has been as I have described, that the coverage of custody should remain the same. Since at present 14 year-old boys can receive a detention centre order of up to four months we propose that they should be able to be sentenced to up to four months' detention in a young offender institution. We are merely carrying over the existing arrangements but not I believe unthinkingly, because 14 year-old boys can occasionally commit offences which are serious enough to justify custody but not sufficiently serious to be caught by the provisions of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. I repeat that I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the amendments. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Hylton: Speaking as a complete layman in these matters it seems to me that this very welcome new clause proposes to legislate by reference to two previous statutes. The numbering is extremely complex. It goes back and forth and it is very difficult to follow for a person who is not legally trained. All that suggests to me that it is a prime candidate for consolidation. Will the Minister ensure that he gets the highest possible priority for that?
The Earl of Caithness: As a layman I sympathise with the noble Lord. I shall draw his remarks to the appropriate attention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 218:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause:
("Placing in care of local authority.
Where a court remands or commits for trial or sentence a young person charged with or convicted of one or more offences other than homicide, rape, arson, inflicted greivous bodily harm or wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and he is not released on bail, then the court shall commit him to the care of the local authority in whose area it appears to the court that he resides or that the offence or one of the offences was committed.").
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment would restrict the remanding of juvenile delinquents to prison and remand centres to await trial or sentence. The Government may perhaps be willing to accept this amendment and if so I ask the Minister what would be the date of implementation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I can see great virtue in this amendment and I have only one doubt about it. I can imagine that a young person (that is, someone under the age of 16) could be charged with an offence other than those mentioned, which are the most serious offences, but nevertheless one requiring a degree of security of custody. Unfortunately even young people of 14 and 15 get caught up in drug pushing sometimes these days.
If that were so it would be essential that, if the local authority is to have the care of them pending trial, in a very small number of cases it should be able to provide security of custodial arrangements. I do not know whether a local authority in these circumstances would have such arrangements hut I think that that factor must be borne in mind when considering what has been proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to say to my noble friend Lord Renton that local authorities have secure accommodation. During the time that I was working as a social worker, a children's officer and a director of social services we had run by the local authority a remand home with secure accommodation and we had some very serious cases. I can remember two cases of murder. But never did we send the offenders into a penal institution.
Lord Renton: Assuming that that applies to all local authorities it is a complete answer to my question.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Surely the position is that if that does not apply this amendment if passed will enforce it, and so it should.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that 1 shall not throw a spanner into the plans of my noble friend but my thoughts at the moment are to resist Amendment No. 218. But the amendment which is also being spoken to, which I gather is Amendment No. 221, I accept in principle in part. Therefore my noble friend might wish to expand her argument a little more.
Baroness Faithfull: I can only expand on this from experience. Once a child has entered a penal institution, even on remand, he is on the first rung of the ladder that leads to prison. The effect on children who are remanded in prison and then found not
860
guilty is quite disastrous. It is disastrous for the parents and for the child. Even if the child is found guilty it would still have been better for him to have been placed in a local authority secure unit rather than in a penal institution.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend. I think it has been worth while for the Committee to hear her further thoughts on the amendments, in the light of her great experience. We share my noble friend's concern that juveniles should be remanded to a prison department establishment only in strictly limited circumstances. Under the present arrangements, only 15 and 16 year-old boys may be so remanded. The criteria for such remands are already strict but we are committed to narrowing them further.
My right honourable friend Mr. Brittan, when he was Home Secretary undertook to confine custodial remands to cases where the boy was charged with murder, attempted murder, rape or certain other very serious offences. I regret to say that this undertaking has not yet been implemented. The reason is that one result of the proposed change will be that some additional young people will be committed to the care of local authorities. We have had to ensure that local authorities are ready to take on this extra responsibility. We are in discussion with the local authority associations and I hope that it will not be too long before we are able to issue a consultation paper setting out our detailed proposals. Our objective is to lay the necessary order by next Easter.
My noble friend Lord Renton said he would have to be satisfied that such accommodation was available. I have to say to my noble friend lady Faithfull that it is not yet so. We hope that by next year we shall be sending out the consultation paper, and we shall be in a much better position as regards this matter. As I have said, I regret that this has taken so long. But these are important changes, affecting circumstances in which there could be risk to the public as well as to the young people themselves. It is very imporant that we should get them right.
Turning now to Amendment 221, it follows from what I have said that we do not believe it is right or would be generally acceptable to the public to proceed immediately to the ending of all custodial remands. That would would be the effect of the amendment. Some 15 and 16 year-old boys have committed very serious offences. Physically they can be fully mature, and their behaviour can be as dangerous as that of any adult. The public rightly expects to be adequately protected from the dangers that such youngsters pose. In my view, subsection (2) of the new clause in Amendment 221 goes much too far in making such remands unavailable for any person under the age of 17, no matter how serious his offence or how dangerous his behaviour.
Amendment No. 218 would allow remands in prison department custody but confine them to juveniles whose offence was one of violence or who had otherwise committed serious acts of violence. The Government have more sympathy with this approach but believe that it also goes too far. It would rule out the possibility of a custodial remand for certain very serious offences for which it should be

861
available. For example, should it not be possible to commit to prison department custody the young arsonist who persistently absconds from his local authority community home and commits further offences each time? The Government's own proposals, which, as I have said, we hope to bring forward shortly, will go a long way towards what Amendment No. 218 would achieve, but they will retain the possibility of a custodial remand for such very serious offenders.
There is, however, one respect in which I can, I think, meet my noble friend's amendments. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 221 would repeal Section 22(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. This allows courts to commit to a remand centre juveniles for whom they have made or are considering making an interim care order and whom they regard as too unruly to be safely committed to local authority care. These juveniles will not be offenders. The Government share the concern that has been expressed about such juveniles being committed to prison department custody. As far as it is possible to tell, this provision has been used very infrequently if at all. We have sought the views of the local authority associations, who agree that this provision is unnecessary. In the light of this it is the Government's view that Section 22(5) of the 1969 Act can be repealed, and we will be ready to bring forward an amendment for this purpose at a later stage.
I realise that that is a good deal less than half the loaf my noble friend was seeking; but I hope she will agree that there is not a great deal between us in substance and that the changes we propose to make in the rules should go a long way towards meeting her underlying concern.
Baroness Seear: The Minister has said that the Government have sympathy with the proposals for local authority care and accommodation for young offenders and that in the days of Mr. Brittan the Home Office was considering such matters. I do not have the dates of the various moves of Mr. Brittan clear in my mind. However, it must be many months since he was in the Home Office. Can the Minister say how many youngsters we are referring to? I cannot believe that if the Government had really wanted that to be done, the accommodation could not have been found. If it was a matter of high priority in the Government's programme, that would have been done.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I apologise to the Committee for being late. I should like to add a word about secure accommodation. It is obviously impossible for every borough in London, for instance, to have its own secure accommodation. However, in my time at Tottenham, I believe we had four secure hostels in the whole of London for remand youngsters, who would have stayed in the hostels for no more than three weeks. We are talking about a remand in custody for three weeks.
At the end of that time we had to make up our minds what to do with them. That meant that not every youngster could be near to home. But that was not, in our view, absolutely necessary. Such youngsters could always be visited. With 48 boroughs
862
in the whole of London and four secure remand homes, the system worked very well because the youngsters were only away from home for three weeks, which sometimes did them a great deal of good.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. What worries me is not the necessity to make sure that young villains of 14 to 17 years of age are prevented from being a danger to the public. We are all agreed on that matter. If there is no other way of preventing their being a danger, they must go to prison.
However, what we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, whom I can hardly refrain from calling my friend, is that most local authorities have a certain amount of secure accommodation. I think that the numbers to be accommodated are few. If there is no other way of ensuring public safety, then it must be done, as I did myself in Northern Ireland. However, it is not the right solution and in this country it should be easy, by applying pressure to one or two local authorities, to make sure that a small number of violent young men or women could be kept in secure accommodation.
I believe that the Minister should not reject the idea but should take it away and look at it. If he comes back and tells us that it is entirely impossible, I shall accept that. The one thing I am not prepared to accept is having these dangerous young men out in public; but I do not believe it is the only way and I think the Minister should look at this further.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very grateful for the additional contributions which have been made at this Committee stage. Of course I will look at the matter; it is a very important area. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are disappointed not to have been able to move as speedily as was hoped—I said there were reasons for it—with the consultations with local authorities. We hope to come forward next Easter with our consultation process. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, was right to highlight the importance of getting it right, together with the point about the safety of the public. I hope I have said enough to convince my noble friend that this is a matter we treat seriously.
With regard to the figures for which the noble Baroness asked, I do not have recent figures with me but from memory I think it is about 1,500 certificates for boys aged 15 and 16. These are certificates of unruliness and in 1980 I know there were 2,748 issued. That number has dropped pretty steadily every year since then.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to thank my noble friend for his reply. Perhaps I could just say that I have been retired for 14 years and before that I worked for 18 years. Never in all my time did we remand a child to prison or to a penal institution. Let me take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that if local authorities do not have to do something they will not do it; if they have to do it then they will do it. However, I am bound to say that there is the question of resources. I hope at the moment that the local authorities will not make the excuse of

863
lack of resources, or at least if they do I hope that some consideration will be given to this point.
I cannot speak too strongly on the effect on children, particularly if they are not found guilty, of being remanded to a prison institution. However, we listened to the sympathetic speech made by my noble friend. We will consider the situation and if necessary bring the matter back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 112 and 113 agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 218ZA:
Before Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—

AMENDMENTS
General
1. Subject to paragraph 2 below, in any enactment—

(a) for a reference to a detention centre or to a youth custody centre or to both there shall be substituted a reference to a young offender institution; and

(b) for a reference (however expressed) to a detention centre order or to a sentence of youth cusotdy or to both there shall be substituted a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.

2. Nothing in paragraph 1(b) above applies—

(a) to section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968;

(b) to Part II of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974; or

(c) to section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; or

(d) to section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

3.—(1) In any enactment except—

(a) section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968,

(b) Part II of Schedule I to the Juries Act 1974;

(c) section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and

(d) sections 1(3) and 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

for a reference to a sentence of Borstal training there shall be substituted a reference to a sentence of detention in a young of lender institution.
(2) In any enactment for a reference to a Borstal institution there shall be substituted a reference to a young offender institution.
Firearms Act 1968(c. 27)
4. In section 21(1) and (2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (possession of firearms by persons previously convicted of crime) after the words "youth custody" there shall be inserted the words "or detention in a young offender institution".
5. In subsection (1)(a) of section 52 (forfeiture and disposal of firearms; cancellation of certificate by convicting court) for the words from "preventive" to "Scotland" there shall be substituted the words "detention in a young offender institution or detention in Scotland in a detention centre or a young offenders' institution;"
Employment Agencies Act 1973 (c.35)
6. In section 13(7)(a)(ii) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 for the words from "prison" to "institution" in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "custodial sentence passed by a criminal court in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man;".
Juries Act 1974 (c. 23)
7. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (persons inelegible for or disqualified from jury service), after the words "youth custody", in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "or detention in a young offender institution".
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53)
8. In section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (rehabilitation periods) the words "detention in a young offender institution" there shall be inserted—

(a) in subection (1)(b), after the words "youth custody", and

(b) in subsection (2), in Table A, after the word "imprisonment", in both places where it occurs.

Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48)
9. The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (b) of section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (restrictions on making attendance centre orders)—
"(ba) to detention in a young offender institution".")

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
10.—(1) Where—

(a) before the date on which section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 comes into force an offender has been committed for sentence to the Crown Court under section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980; but

(b) the Crown Court has not dealt with him before that date, it shall have the same powers of sentencing as if he had been committed on or after that date.

(2) A court to which it falls to determine for the purposes of any enactment how a previous court could or might have dealt with an offender, shall if the offender is under 21 years of age make that determination as if Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 had been in force as amended by this Act.
11. An offender who was sentenced to youth custody on a date before the commencement of section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 or who was ordered to be detained in a detention centre before that date shall, if the sentence or order has not expired at the commencement of that section, be treated for all purposes of detention, release and supervision as if he had been sentenced to detention for the like term in a young offender institution.
12. A custodial order—

(a) under section 71AA of the Army Act 1955, section 71AA of the Air Force Act 1955 or section 43AA of the Naval Discipline Act 1957; or

(b) under paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to the Army Act 1955, Schedule 5A to the Air Force Act 1955 or Schedule 4A to the Naval Discipline Act 1957,

shall be treated for all purposes of detention, release and supervision of the offender as a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.
13. Rules under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 may provide that any awards for an offence against discipline made before the commencement of section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 shall continue to have effect, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate in relation to any particular description of award.
14. Where on the commencement of section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 a person is subject—

(a) to supervision by virtue of section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982; or

(b) to a licence under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967,

he shall be treated thereafter as if the sentence or order by virtue of which he is so subject had been a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.
15. Nothing in this Act affects any right of appeal against a sentence of youth custody.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment, which is to insert a new schedule.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Supervision]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 123, line 37, leave out from first ("a") to ("which") in line 38 and insert ("sentence of detention in a young offender institution").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this amendment referring to page 123 of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 219A:
Page 124, line 8, after ("sentence") insert ("other than a sentence of detention in a young offender institution").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would delete the provision of the Bill enabling courts to send juvenile offenders into custody for breach of specified activities requirements in supervision orders. My noble friend the Minister has quoted the figures of the drop in the number of juvenile delinquents, and particularly those sent into custody, either into penal institutions or into care. I think this has been largely due to the development which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know all about; that is, intermediate treatment.
The specified activities requirements in supervision orders are very often carried out in intermediate treatment centres. If a child infringes the specified activities requirement in a supervision order and is brought back to court and then a custody order is made, that child is being sent into custody simply for infringing a specified activities requirement and not because he has committed a criminal offence.
Those of us who have worked in intermediate treatment centres know that among the children we are dealing with, with specified activities requirements some of them drive one almost round the bend. And I regret to have to say that very often one thinks that if one took those children to court and got a custodial sentence they would be out of the way.
One has to go on working and working with children over and over again. It is no good opting out. It seems to me that to take a child back to court because there is a breach of the specified activities requirement in a supervision order is a measure of the failure of those of us who run the intermediate treatment centres. I hope very much that this will be given a second thought.
The magistrates are put into a very awkward position. If those responsible for running the intermediate treatment centres, for administering the specified activities requirement in supervision orders, go to the magistrates, the magistrates will almost inevitably make a custodial order. This is the one thing that we must fight against—namely, taking children into custody when it is not really necessary.
I should like to make a second point and it is that personalities come into this. Some children react against one person and some children take to another person. If a child reacts against somebody that he or she is having to work with then thought has to be given about moving that child or perhaps changing the specified activities requirements. I do not believe it is right that children should be placed in custody because they have breached the specified activities requirements in a supervision order. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt: I am very happy to be a supporter of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I can do very little other than to echo the words she said. We must be careful about anything we do in this Bill and that the wording of the Bill does not increase the likelihood of sending more young people into custody. My reading of Schedule 7, Part III, subsection (4A), without the addition of the words which the noble Baroness would insert, leads me to believe that it does increase that possibility.
If a young person fails to comply with a supervised activities order imposed by a magistrates' court, then it is really incumbent upon the court to choose one of the other alternative non-custodial penalties available to it. The noble Baroness has mentioned intermediate treatment. There is of course a community service order, a care order, a probation order and so on. It seems to me that without the words in the amendment the forecast made by the noble Baroness will almost certainly come true. Some courts, at any rate, will resort to custody.
Custody has to be a last step. It is the whole burden of the noble Earl's amendment to Clause 111. This part of the Bill would make it a first step. In fact it contradicts the amendment by the noble Earl which we have just welcomed with open arms. When he comes to reply, I shall be very grateful if he will comment on my belief that the provision does by inference contradict what he has just given us.
Lord Renton: I see the merits of this amendment but I am a little afraid that it would have a restrictive effect. It would limit the opportunities which would otherwise be available to those responsible for deciding how young people should be kept in custody. I think that to have the possibilities kept as large as possible and as flexible as possible might be a good thing.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand and accept the concern which lies behind my noble friend's amendment. It is that the use of custody for young offenders should be very much a last resort. There is nothing between us on that, as will, I hope, be clear from what I said in our earlier debate about a unified custodial sentence. The question is whether the proposal in Schedule 7 helps or hinders that concern. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it hindered. I beg to differ with him and I believe it in fact helps.
My noble friend's argument was, in essence, that providing custodial sanctions for breach of supervision orders where these orders are themselves imposed as a direct alternative to custody will lead in the end to more custody in cases where it is not justified. I summarise, of course, but I hope my noble friend will accept it as a fair summary.
But, if one looks more closely at what we are proposing, it should he apparent that it is quite consistent with the philosophy that custody should be used sparingly and that non-custodial alternatives should be used whenever possible. A central plank of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 was the creation of a new, strengthened supervision order, in which the courts can have confidence as a real and demanding alternative to custody. The relevant provisions are

867
re-enacted in Schedule 7 and will now be Section 12A(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Their essential feature is that the court has power to include specific requirements in supervision orders, notably a requirement to participate in an intensive intermediate treatment scheme of the kind which many local authority social services departments and voluntary bodies have been developing in recent years, with the Government's support.
I believe that these provisions of the 1982 Act have been welcomed by the courts. They provide the statutory umbrella under which a wide variety of local schemes have developed. But the Magistrates' Association has put it to us that they are less well used than they might be, at least in some parts of the country, because the court is so limited in the sanctions it can apply when the young person fails to observe the conditions of the order. At the moment the sanctions are limited to a fine or an attendance centre order. That may be perfectly adequate for the general run of supervision orders. But when the magistrates have before them a young person who has committed a serious crime and would be contemplating a custodial sentence were it not for the availability of the tough non-custodial options, it is perhaps not surprising that they should want to be able to respond severely should he subsequently simply fail to co-operate.
That is why we are proposing that a wider range of sanctions, including custody, should be available in these cases. The effect, we hope, will be that the courts feel more willing to use intensive supervision as an alternative to custody. I feel supported in that by my noble friend Lord Renton saying that it will give greater flexibility. The amendment would defeat that purpose by removing the possibility of custody for serious breach of the requirements of supervision. I stress the word "possibility" because the custodial sanction is one to which the courts would want to have resort only for the most serious breaches, where all else had failed.
I should emphasise that we are not proposing that the wider range of sanctions should be available for the ordinary run of supervision orders. The provision is very tightly confined to the special strengthened orders with specific requirements, where the court has explicitly certified that it is using supervision as an alternative to custody. I suspect that my noble friend and I are not going to find a meeting of minds on this. I hope, however, that she will accept that we are moved by a desire to achieve the more confident use by the courts of the most demanding alternatives to custody in the more serious cases.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Earl sits down may I point out that we are spending a great deal of time on what, in my youth, were considered to be young children. Does not the noble Earl agree that the latest statistics show that it is a predominance of boys of 15 years of age who are committing most crimes in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend is absolutely right. The peak age of offending for boys is 15 and for girls it is 14. Therefore, we talking of a
868
serious situation and, with this amendment, about specific requirements which, if broken, should be strengthened by the use that the courts may make of a custodial sentence giving them greater confidence in using an alternative to custody in the first place.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for his reply. I have every sympathy with magistrates, who feel that they do not have alternatives when a case is brought back to court. However, it seems to me that where local authorities have set up good intermediate treatment centres or where, if that has not been possible, they have applied to the big children's societies such as Barnardo's, the Church of England Children's Society and the National Children's Homes, it has been possible to provide magistrates with alternatives.
Rather than continuing endlessly with custody I believe that there should be a great push with the local authorities to provide magistrates with alternatives. I speak with feeling, having been a member of Barnardo's. We set up an enormous number of intermediate treatment centres where local authorities could not afford them. I hope that my noble friend will press local authorities to provide magistrates with sanctions that are alternatives to custodial orders. I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said, and reconsider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Clause 114 [Detention in Detention Centre instead of Youth Custody Centre]:
On Question, Whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that Clause 114 shall not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 negatived.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 115 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 222:
After Clause 115, insert the following new clause:
("Conviction on Indictment.
The following subsections shall be substituted for sections 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—
"(2) Where a young person is convicted on indictment of any offence which is punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for fourteen years or more, not being an offence the sentence of which is fixed by law, and the court is of opinion that none of the other methods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable, the court may sentence the offender to be detained for such period not exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment with which the offence is punishable in the case of an adult as may be specified in the sentence; and where such a sentence has been passed the young person shall, during that period, notwithstandng anything in the other provisions of this Act be liable to be detained in such place and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct."")
The noble Baroness said: This new clause would remove offenders under 14 from the ambit of Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 53(1) provides that a juvenile convicted of

869
murder shall be sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. That provision would be unaffected by the new clause.
Section 53(2) provides that, if a juvenile is found guilty on indictment of an offence for which an adult could receive 14 years' imprisonment, the court may sentence the offender to be detained for a period not exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence in such place and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct.
At present there is an odd inconsistency in the application of Section 53(2) to children aged 10 to 13 inclusive, because the section can be used only by the Crown Court. That means in practice that children of that age can only be sentenced under this section if they are jointly charged with an adult. It is irrational and anomalous that a juvenile who is led on by an adult should be open to sentencing under Section 53 whereas one who is responsible for his or her offence cannot be sentenced under that section. Moreover, for serious offenders of this age, a care order, which is indeterminate and under which juveniles can be placed in a variety of settings including secure accommodation, is the most appropriate option.
In a discussion on Section 53 in Committee in another place on 12th March, Mr. David Mellor, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, said that he was prepared to undertake to reconsider the age ranges that were covered. The new clause enables the Government to he asked the result of the consideration of that point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Will my noble friend confirm that we are dealing solely with Amendment No. 222 and not with Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 at the same time?
Baroness Faithfull: I am sorry. I should have said that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 as well.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that point. These three new clauses raise a number of points about Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act, under which juveniles convicted at the Crown Court of the most serious offences may be sentenced to long periods of detention. Were it not for Section 53(2), the maximum custodial sentence available to the courts when dealing with juveniles convicted of even the most serious offences—except murder, to which Section 53(2) does not apply—would be 12 months' youth custody. In future that will of course be 12 months' detention in a young offender institution, but the principle will be the same.
Juveniles are capable of committing very serious offences indeed and it is clear that for some of them 12 months' custody is wholly inadequate. Section 53(2) rightly allows the courts to impose longer periods of custody for these most serious offences. The Government are in no doubt at all that Section 53(2) is a very necessary provision. I am sure that the Committee will share that view. The question that these three new clauses pose is whether the present arrangements are right in their detail.
870
The first of the new clauses deals with the question of the age group to which Section 53(2) applies. Its effect would be to confine the availability of the sentences to juveniles aged 14 or over. As my noble friend has pointed out, because of the operation of Section 53(2), together with Section 24 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the only juveniles under 14 to whom Section 53(2) applies are those convicted at the Crown Court after being charged jointly with an adult or charged with manslaughter. I am quite sure in my own mind that the possibility of a Section 53(2) sentence must remain available for juveniles under 14 who have been convicted of manslaughter. Section 53(2) is the only custodial sentence available for juveniles under 14 and it would be quite wrong to remove altogether the possibility of a custodial penalty for this most grave offence. As for those under 14 charged jointly with an adult, this may be an anomaly, and I should be prepared to consider rectifying it. But 1 have to say that it is by no means clear that the change would have any real effect. Our records show no Section 53(2) cases involving juveniles under 14 since 1983, and then there was only one.
The second of the new clauses addresses the range of offences for which Section 53(2) sentences should be available. At present it may be used only for offences (other than murder) carrying a maximum penalty of at least 14 years' imprisonment. To this test the new clause would add the requirement that the offence must he mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982. My noble friend has explained that the main purpose of this change would be to remove burglary from the scope of Section 53(2). In considering whether Section 53(2) should apply to burglary it is important to keep the figures in perspective. Although the numbers of Section 53(2) sentences given for burglary have been increasing, in 1985 Section 53(2) was used for only 31 out of a total of almost 15,000 juveniles convicted of burglary. Some of these 31 may indeed be cases of aggravated burglary, which would not be excluded by the new clause. Burglary can be a very serious offence and it is for that reason that it is, and I believe should remain, within the scope of Section 53(2).
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps 1 may ask the Minister a question on that. I apologise for not being able to give him notice of it. Is there no distinction in the statistics between burglary and aggravated burglary?
The Earl of Caithness: At the moment I do not have that breakdown. I shall look into the matter and inform the noble Lord.
Referring back to Section 53(2), in their context I would suggest that the figures do not give as strong grounds for concern as my noble friend has suggested.
The third new clause raises a rather different issue. It is concerned with the arrangements for the release of juveniles sentenced to Section 53(2) detention. At present, these arrangements are a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. There is no statutory provision for remission, with which the new clause is concerned. Nor is there a statutory

871
entitlement to be considered for early release on licence after a third of the sentence. The advantage of the present arrangements is their flexibility, which means that the young people can be released whenever it is felt they are ready. This can mean that some are released earlier than they might have been if there were fixed arrangements. Nevertheless, I understand the concern that has prompted this new clause. As members of the Committee will know, the whole question of parole is the subject of a review being carried by Mr. Mark Carlisle. The question of the release of juveniles detained under Section 53(2) is within the scope of the review, and Mr. Carlisle is being provided with information about the present arrangements. In view of this the Committee will understand the Government's wish to await the outcome of the review before deciding upon any changes to the present arrangements for release of Section 53(2) detainees.
I have given a long answer but I believe it was right to put it fully on the record. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the three new clauses.
Lord Hylton: I am advised by my noble friend Lord Henderson, whose name is also on the amendment, that sentences under this clause can go up to detention at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. I have to plead total ignorance as to the arrangements for that type of punishment in England, but I have had some experience of how they work in Northern Ireland, where there have been a number of juvenile terrorist-type offences and sentences. There, I am glad to say, we have reached a point where nobody has been detained for more than six years without having his sentence properly reviewed by, in that case, the Life Sentence Review Board. This is tremendously important, because we know that long indeterminate sentences generate a feeling of total hopelessness and despair in those suffering them. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the review arrangements in England and Wales are at least comparable and possibly better than the arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like first of all to apologise for not being in my place when the noble Baroness moved the amendment. Secondly, I am most grateful to learn from the noble Earl that the subject of these three amendments will be examined by Mr. Carlisle when his committee is set up. If that is so, I am extremely grateful, because all the amendments are concerned with points of importance. It is especially important that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, an injustice which is perceived by the young people themselves and by their custodians should be removed. Young people in both categories in the same establishment are receiving different sentences. That cannot be right. One could have two people, one over 17 and one under 17, receiving different sentences. These three amendments have raised matters of great importance. I thank the noble Earl for his lengthy and considered reply. I do not know whether the noble Baroness agrees, but I feel that we must await the deliberations of the Carlisle committee.
The Earl of Caithness: With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has just said, only the third of the new clauses, Amendment No. 244, will be the subject of the Carlisle review. That concerns a different point and it is Amendment No. 222 at which I shall be having another look.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the need to keep long, indeterminate sentences under review. We are discussing generally determinate sentences but the principle of regular review is absolutely right. The Carlisle committee will also be considering that.
Baroness Faithfull: My heart lifted when I heard that the Carlisle review will look at Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act, but as I understand it from my noble friend that will apply only to Amendment No. 224 and not to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223. On the other hand my noble friend has said that he will study what has been said in the Committee today. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 not moved.]
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 225:
After Clause 115, insert the following new clause:
("Legal aid.
. In the powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, section 22(1), after "sentence of imprisonment" there shall be added the words "or order for youth custody", after "with imprisonment" there shall be added the words "or youth custody", and after "shall take effect" there shall be added the words "unless the offender had been subject to an order for youth custody and had since attained the age of 21 years. in which case the original order for youth custody shall have effect as if it had been a sentence of imprisonment".").
The noble Lord said: I rise, I believe, to wind up the evening and to put forward what is really not so much an amendment as a rather tentative suggestion. It is sidelined under the words "legal aid". That appears to be something of a printer's quirk and should be treated with total contempt.
In 1973 many of us sitting at that time judicially welcomed the power to suspend sentences of imprisonment. We welcomed it for three reasons: first, because it was an added weapon in the armoury of people who had to sentence; secondly, because it was an additional deterrent, a way in which people could have something hanging over them rather more formidable than a conditional discharge or a probation order; and thirdly, because if the sentence was properly used—and it was not always properly used—it resulted in rather fewer people being sent to prison than otherwise would have been sent there.
The reason for the last statement is simply that it was made perfectly clear that no suspended sentence of imprisonment should ever be passed unless the judge had made up his mind that a sentence of imprisonment was inevitable in the circumstances of the case. Having made up his mind to that effect, the judge could then go on to consider whether there were circumstances which might warrant the suspension of that sentence. That is why I say that, if anything, it must have had some effect in keeping people out of prison who otherwise would have been there.
I felt, as did many of my colleagues in the succeeding years, that a similar power in relation to young offenders might equally be useful. But that power has never been given to the courts. It would enable the courts in passing a sentence of youth custody—having decided that such a sentence was the only appropriate sentence in a particular case—to suspend it for a given period provided the young person was of good behaviour during that period. That is the thought behind this amendment.
The proposal is made a little clumsy, I recognise at once, by the complication in relation to a young person and a sentence of youth custody that a suspended sentence might be imposed, that during the period of the suspension the offender might cease to be eligible to serve by reason of age a sentence of youth custody and that he would instead have to serve a sentence of imprisonment if he committed an offence during that period. The somewhat awkward wording of this new clause is designed to deal with that by saying— and I recognise that there are problems here —that if a sentence of youth custody were suspended and the offender committed an offence after the age when he was liable to be sentenced to youth custody, then that sentence would be dealt with as though it had been in the first place a sentence of imprisonment.
I appreciate that this is a matter of some controversy. It is put forward in a genuine desire to help and in a genuine desire to try to keep some young offenders out of youth custody and at liberty. In that spirit, I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for bringing this matter to the Committee's attention. I am aware of the considerable degree of judicial support which the idea of suspended youth custody sentences enjoys. In future, in the light of the government amendments which the Committee accepted earlier today, we shall have to speak of "detention in a young offender establishment", but that does not affect the substance of the argument. It was because we took very seriously the judges' feeling that the absence of a power to suspend youth custody sentences was a regrettable gap in the sentencing structure that we published a consultative document a little over a year ago inviting views on the various possibilities.
The great majority of those who responded to our invitation were against the introduction of suspended youth custody sentences. They included the Magistrates' Association, whose members would be most likely to use such a new power, and other bodies in the criminal justice system—the Law Society, the Association of Chief Probation Officers, NACRO—whose views we respect.
Put simply, the main concern of those who opposed the idea was that if suspended sentences were available the use of custody for young offenders would be greater than otherwise. There is some support for that view from the figures and after the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Before the Act came into force suspended sentences of imprisonment could be imposed on young men
874
aged between 17 and 20. Incidentally, it is worth noting that neither sentences of Borstal training nor detention centres orders could be suspended, and accordingly there were no suspended sentences for juveniles, so the 1982 Act was perhaps not as great a departure as some might think. As it stands, the noble Lord's amendment would of course apply to juveniles.
In 1982, the last full year before the Act came into force, 6,100 suspended sentences of imprisonment and 22,700 immediate custodial sentences (imprisonment, Borstal training or detention centre orders) were imposed on young men. In 1984, the first full year of operation of the new Act, 23,700 immediate custodial sentences (youth custody or detention centre) were imposed. So on the face of it all but a thousand of the 6,100 suspended sentences were replaced, not by immediate custody, but by noncustodial penalties.
I think this must put in doubt whether the reintroduction of suspended sentences would have any beneficial effect on the prison population. Indeed there are quite good grounds for thinking that it might actually increase the prison population. It should be remembered that for adults the rate of breach of fully suspended prison sentences is about 30 per cent.
A further consideration is that for young offenders there are the special restrictions on the use of custody in Section 1(4) of the 1982 Act which will be strengthened by this Bill. These say, in effect, that custody is not to be used for a young offender unless the court is satisfied that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. A young offender will qualify for a custodial sentence only if he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them; or if only a custodial sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm; or if his offence is so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified.
It might be possible to reconcile a suspended custodial sentence with the first of these criteria. But it would require considerable intellectual gymnastics on the part of the court to decide that a custodial sentence was necessary on either the second or the third and then to suspend it.
For these reasons the Government have not hitherto been attracted by the idea of suspended custodial sentences for young offenders. But our minds are not completely closed, and the change to a single sentence provides an opportunity to look at the matter again. If the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will withdraw his amendment, I should be glad to look at this matter, entirely without commitment, and to return to it at a later stage.
Lord Wigoder: The last thing that I want to do is to be responsible in any way for any proposal that might increase the number of people serving any sort of custodial sentence. If that were to be the effect I should be deeply perturbed. I suspect it may be that the figures given by the Minister are an indication that the principle of suspended sentences is sometimes neither understood by those who are

875
passing those sentences nor complied with. I am very happy to accept what the Minister has said about looking further at this matter, and I am grateful to him for his consideration of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I call Amendment No. 225A.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Baroness moves this amendment, I should like to point out that we on these Benches were informed that the Committee would rise after consideration of Amendment No. 225. On the basis of that information, which we secured through the usual channels, two of my noble friends went home. I accept that it was done in good faith but I do not think that we should be given one account at one moment and a few moments later find that a totally different picture appears to emerge. I hope that this topic can be started tomorrow. We had a very clear indication from the Government that they intended to leave the debate after we had considered Amendment No. 225.
The Earl of Caithness: I am of course in the hands of the Committee, but I had hoped that it would be possible to take Amendment No. 225A. My noble friend Lady Faithfull is in the Chamber. It is her amendment and it is for her to move it. I realise that there has been some confusion about whether the final amendment this evening should be No. 225 or No. 225A. I thought the matter had been sorted out so that we could take Amendment No. 225A tonight. However, I am in the hands of my noble friend and the Committee on this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: All I can say is that Amendment No. 225A breaks entirely new ground. as I understand it, in the sense that it proposes to apply to England the Scottish system for children's hearings. However, perhaps the noble Baroness whose amendment it is and who has a considerable interest in this matter has some thoughts to contribute.
Baroness Faithfull: I am in some difficulty because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, must be aware of some Members who wish to speak on this amendment but are not present. I imagine that that is why he has spoken as he has. If that is the case, I wonder whether the Minister will agree to this amendment being discussed tomorrow.
The Earl of Caithness: I am very happy to oblige my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Thank you very much.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  PRISON SERVICE: FRESH START IMPLEMENTATION
  PRISON SERVICE: FRESH START IMPLEMENTATION
  FRESH START: IMPLEMENTATION AT GRENDON
  FRESH START: IMPLEMENTATION AT GRENDON
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG: RESETTLEMENT IN UK
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG: RESETTLEMENT IN UK
  GUILDFORD AND WOOLWICH BOMBINGS: NEW EVIDENCE
  GUILDFORD AND WOOLWICH BOMBINGS: NEW EVIDENCE
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL: WHITE PAPER
  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL: WHITE PAPER
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM PROPOSALS: CONSULTATION
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM PROPOSALS: CONSULTATION
  CENSUS: ARRANGEMENTS FOR 1991
  CENSUS: ARRANGEMENTS FOR 1991
  EAST CHESHIRE HOSPICE: FUNDING
  EAST CHESHIRE HOSPICE: FUNDING
  PETERBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  PETERBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN GREATER LONDON AND METROPOLITAN COUNTIES
  ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES IN GREATER LONDON AND METROPOLITAN COUNTIES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SPENDING AND LEASING OF ASSETS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SPENDING AND LEASING OF ASSETS
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS BY COMPANIES FROM DIVIDENDS
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS BY COMPANIES FROM DIVIDENDS