Sitting of 17 November 1987

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

    DYFED BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third reading read.
    Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [LORDS]

    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered Tomorrow.

    TRADE
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house a Return of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1988 and for each month during 1988.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Employment Service
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the aims and objects of the employment service.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The employment service will bring together the work of jobcentres and benefit offices to provide a more effective service for unemployed people, particularly the long-term unemployed, by offering them a range of opportunities to help them back into work as soon as possible.
    Mr. Patnick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will the new employment service ensure that Sheffield employers and the unemployed in my constituency receive the same quality of service from the jobcentres?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. The aim is to ensure that all our services are properly co-ordinated—particularly to help unemployed people—and I believe that the new service will result in an improvement in service to the public.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State ask the jobcentres in the Bootle area to encourage management at
    900
    the Girobank to recruit labour locally rather than to send middle and top management to South Africa to recruit labour, as it has done recently? Is that not a scandal in an area with 30 to 40 per cent. unemployment?
    Mr. Fowler: That has next to nothing to do with the employment service or jobcentres. However, I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point, if he has a point.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend consider lifting the restriction on the Manpower Services Commission requiring it to seek a union waiver to allow community programmes to be used to clear up the storm damage? Does he agree that the obduracy of the unions is unforgivable, especially in my constituency where, unfortunately, unemployment increased last month? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a statement about the matter?
    Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly look at the matter further. I know of the problems that there have been in the Isle of Wight. In fact, the community programme is being used to seek to deal with some of the damage caused. I shall certainly talk to the director of the Manpower Services Commission to discover whether further action can be taken.
    Ms. Short: Will the Secretary of State admit that the reorganisaton of the employment service is intended to be used, in combination with the new power to stop benefits for six months if a person leaves a job or refuses a reasonable offer, to force people into schemes that are so low paid and poor that unemployed people will not accept them voluntarily?
    Mr. Fowler: That is not remotely the purpose. The purpose is to provide a better service for the public. It is not a question of hounding people off the register. If they are genuinely unemployed and seeking work they are entitled to prompt and courteous service. However, if they are not genuinely available for or actively seeking work it is the duty of the service to identify them.

    MSC Facilities (Southall)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what fee was paid by the Ealing, North Labour party for the use of Manpower Services Commission facilities at 10 King street, Southall, for the use of personnel and computer facilities in May and June 1987; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): There are no Manpower Services Commission personnel on computer facilities at 10 King street, Southall, but 11B King street is the headquarters of Southall Community Projects Committee Ltd., which is an agency for the community programme. I understand that some facilities at the latter address were used during the election campaign for the translation of political material. Such activity is against the rules of the community programme. The agency investigated the matter and put a stop to that activity. No fee was paid by the Ealing, North labour party.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that such breaches by the Labour party, or anybody else, are serious? Will he undertake to investigate correspondence, which has been sent to me, showing that at the general

    901
    election the Labour candidate for Ealing, North, Mr. Benn-Junior, used the facilities extensively in his campaign, and that the national executive of the Labour party had the leader of the Labour party's speeches translated into ethnic minority languages by that very office? The matter is serious because the office's normal work could not proceed. Will my hon. Friend investigate the matter?
    Mr. Cope: The translation work to which I referred related to a speech by the Leader of the Opposition. It was in the course of translation when work was stopped, and, therefore, there was no circulation of speeches from the community programme source. I shall certainly investigate the other allegations that have been made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that No. 10 King street is actually a halal butcher shop and that it would seem most appropriate that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should be taken outside and ritually slaughtered for that piece of nasty non-information that he offered? Is the Minister further aware that the area manager, Mr. Spicer, investigated the matter and found no reason to make a formal complaint, that such translations are a normal feature of the office and that, in the past, they have also involved political speeches by Conservative Members? Will he also—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that Ealing, North Conservative Association has been using House of Commons stationery to circulate party political information?
    Mr. Cope: That is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] It might have been before, but it is no longer a matter for me. It is a fundamental rule of the community programme that projects must not involve political activity. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for that agency to go in for translation, but not of political material. I deeply deplore that.

    Job Training Scheme
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places are available under the job training scheme ; and how many of these are occupied in the most recent period of record.
    Mr. Cope: The Manpower Services Commission has provision for up to 110,000 trainees on the new job training scheme. At 25 September 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 22,111 people in training.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is not the deplorable take-up a sign that the pre-election gimmick, the job training scheme, has been a total and utter failure? Everyone in the country, especially the long-term unemployed, saw it as a pre-election gimmick. They also saw that it did not create jobs and that it was not quality training. In many cases, it was job substitution and cheap labour. When will the Government recognise that the people of this country want well-paid quality training? The incentive must be quality and pay, not compulsion.
    Mr. Cope: It is precisely because we have put quality before quantity that the take-up is as it is. We believe that
    902
    the principles of the JTS are entirely right : practical training for the long-term unemployed and allowances based on needs.
    Sir Anthony Grant: I wholly support the job training scheme, but is my hon. Friend aware that there is a danger of its being interpreted somewhat bureaucratically? May I send to him the case of one of my constituents who has happily completed two weeks with a company under the job training scheme, only to be told that he cannot continue because he has not been on the dole long enough? Will he look into that sort of tomfoolery?
    Mr. Cope: I will certainly look into any case that my hon. Friend or anybody else sends to me.
    Mr. Leighton: Is not the JTS monumentally unpopular with employers, clients and those agencies that work with the MSC in running those programmes? Is it not obvious, from the Minister's answer, that less than a quarter of the number intended are on JTS, that many of those leave early, and that that is because the whole concept of working for benefit is flawed and misguided? Should he not discontinue the scheme and replace it with a much improved one?
    Mr. Cope: The take-up of the JTS has been slower than we anticipated or wished. However, I believe that no one should be denied training because of the loss of income from benefit. Allowances based on needs is the right concept.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no plan for benefit sanctions on JTS?
    Mr. Cope: We have no immediate plans to change the situation.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend of unemployment over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Fowler: As I announced on Thursday, there has been a record annual fall in unemployment since October 1986. New figures that I am publishing today show that there has been a record fall in long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment fell by 169,000 in the 12 months to October, to its lowest level for nearly four years.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging news about the trend of unemployment generally, particularly for the long-term unemployed, but can he confirm that unemployment among under 25-yearolds is also continuing to fall and that it is now well below the EEC average?
    Mr. Fowler: I can confirm both those points. It is certainly below the average of many European countries. The latest figures show that unemployment among under 25-year-olds showed a fall of 227,000 over the past year —a reduction of 20 per cent. Unemployment among the under 25-year-olds is now the lowest for over five years.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no room for complacency? May we please have real jobs for the long-term unemployed? I remind him of the early 1980s redundancies in steel, coal and textiles and the fact that many of those unfortunate enough to lose

    903
    their jobs at that time in those industries are still without work. I also remind him that in the travel-to-work area of my constituency more than 10,000 people are out of work.
    Mr. Fowler: There is certainly no room for complacency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the major priority must be the long-term unemployed. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary fairness, will acknowledge the great improve-ment that there has been in employment, particularly over the past 12 months.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only has unemployment in my constituency fallen by nearly one tenth in the last month, but that such is the confidence of local firms in the Government's policies that no fewer than 66 per cent. of them plan to increase labour over the next six months? Will he tell the House by how many the number of 18 to 23-year-olds in employment has increased since 1983 and by what percentage unemployment for that group has fallen?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot give the figures that my hon. Friend has requested, but I can say that there has been the fall in unemployment that I referred to of almost 230,000 for under 25-year-olds. The general point is clear, and it is made clear again by the figures that I shall publish today, that long-term unemployment is coming down. As my hon. Friend reminds the House, there is no question but that new jobs are becoming available.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the suspicions that surround the method of producing the unemployment figures? Is he willing to tell the House about the claims experiment, started by his Department on 1 September and to last for three months, which seeks new ways of harassing the unemployed to ensure that they leave the register and thus contribute to the claimed glowing Conservative success.
    Mr. Fowler: There is no question whatsoever of harassing the unemployed. Checks will certainly be made to ensure that people are available for work, but that has been the position under all Administrations.
    In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures, I remind him that there has been a fall in the number of unemployed every month over the past 16 months. That has been the trend. It ill becomes the Opposition to complain about that extremely good news.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a substantial fall in the level of unemployment in my constituency over the past 16 months and that a great deal of that is due to Government-backed training schemes, which are very popular, not only with those who are looking for jobs, but with employers in the district?
    Mr. Fowler: That is right. It is also clear that schemes such as YTS, are leading increasingly to people entering permanent employment. It is about time that the Opposition recognised the success of those schemes.

    Job Training Scheme
    Miss Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to pay a higher wage to participants in the job training scheme.
    Mr. Cope: Participants in the new job training scheme are trainees and receive a training allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement, which increases when benefit rates increase.
    Miss Mowlam: Will the Minister explain why allowances are related to benefits and needs, as he stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)? Why do people's needs differ when they are training from their needs when they are in work?
    Mr. Cope: Their needs are the same whether they are on the unemployed register or whether they are training. That is the basis of their allowances while training, and that is the right basis for them.
    Mr. Baldry: Is it not right that more than 50 per cent. of the unemployed have no skills or qualifications whatsoever and that we must all be in favour of a skills crusade? Therefore, every penny available should he spent on training, and that is what the job training scheme involves. It ensures that people get skills to get employment. Unless they have skills, they will continue to be unskilled, unqualified and unemployed.
    Mr. Cope: Exactly so.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not obvious that if the JTS and community programme are merged, the community programme will turn out to be as much a monumental flop as the JTS, and for exactly the same reason, namely, that payment at or near benefit levels smells of industrial conscription? Will the Minister confirm that benefit-plus will be much nearer £5 a week than the £15 a week mentioned by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry during the election campaign? Will he also confirm that of the 80 per cent. of present members of the community programme who are single, that represents a cut in pay of almost 50 per cent. from £67 a week to about £35 a week? That is scandalous, and it is the biggest cut in low pay yet engineered even by this Government.
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering the future of adult training, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a statement as soon as possible. However, it must be night to pay allowances based on needs, purely because no one should be denied training by the drop in benefit that that would otherwise entail. One of the disadvantages of the community programme is that it appeals only to those at the lower end of the scale, for example, unmarried people, and not to those who are married with families, for whom it represents a big loss in benefit. That is one of the difficulties with the community programme.

    Industrial Training Boards
    Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the future of industrial training boards.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The representations that we have received most recently have concerned our proposals to appoint additional members to the boards, together with representations concerning the role of the engineering industry training board.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that while some industry training boards

    905
    may have some continuing and residual usefulness, others have become burdensome and oppressive to the industries that they are supposed to serve? Should not their continuing existence be reviewed?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is right to say that before the last series of reforms many employers felt that these boards represented an unnecessary burden, and that is why we reduced their numbers. Having said that, we keep under review the future of industrial training boards, which obviously includes the EITB.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that when employers approached the Government to reduce the number of industrial training boards they undertook to deal with the shortage of skills, yet in several questions today it has been pointed out there is a serious shortage of skilled people? Is that not an indictment of what happens when the number of industrial training boards is reduced?
    Mr. Nicholls: If industrial training boards are not doing their job, that can be the case only if the non-statutory training organisations are doing theirs properly. There are some good NSTOs and some bad ones. Currently, studies are considering the effectiveness of those training organisations, and we shall consider the position in the light of what we hear.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that some trade unions are still set on demarcation? Is that why the construction industry training board is opposed to the multi-skill courses? Is it not sensible for a plasterer to be able to tile, or vice versa, in case it rains?
    Mr. Nicholls: In this day and age the mere mention of demarcation has a very dated sound to it. It is fair to say that in some industries the concept dies harder than in others. One of the matters with which we must get to grips is that the days when apprenticeships were done purely on a time-serving basis have long since passed.
    Mr. Meacher: Was not the Secretary of State's announcement last Friday of a further review of Government skillcentres, which have already been cut from 90 to just over 50, simply a device to cut the number by half again to pave the way for the real objective of the Government—the privatisation of training? When will the Secretary of State get the message that the private sector in Britain already provides the worst trained work force in Europe? It is because we spend only one twentieth of the comparable training bill of Germany, Sweden and other European countries that a public sector lead is vital. The number of skillcentres should be increased, not cut.
    Mr. Nicholls: The skills training agency stands or falls on its ability to deliver training efficiently and at the right price for our work force. We need no lectures from Labour Members about our record on training. In 1979–80 Britain was spending only £458 million on youth and adult training; this year we shall spend £1·8 billion.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in full-time jobs ; and what were the comparable figures in June 1979.
    Mr. Fowler: In June 1987 there were 18,737,000 people in full-time jobs in Great Britain and a further 5,622,000
    906
    in part-time jobs. In June 1979 there were 19,950,000 in full-time jobs and 4,817,000 in part-time jobs. In the past 12 months, 372,000 new jobs have been created, of which the majority—206,000—were full time.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that those figures are a clear demonstration of the real nature of unemployment in Britain today? Will he acknowledge that more than 1 million highly paid and highly skilled full-time jobs have been lost since the Government took office, but the replacements that he has managed to find are part-time and poorly paid?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not remotely accept that criticism. One of the reasons for the loss of jobs was that the Labour Government failed to take the necessary action in the 1970s, and that led to a job shortage. There has been an increase in the number of full and part-time jobs in Britain, and I should have thought that any sensible person would welcome that.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that very many people welcome the opportunity to add to their family income by taking on a part-time job? Does he further agree that, as industry and commerce generally increase their productivity and output, part-time jobs often become full-time?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with both the points that my hon. Friend, with his knowledge, has made. The labour force survey showed that most people working part-time do so because they want to. Indeed, for married women with children, part-time work is one of the only options open to them.
    Mr. Terry Fields: Despite the figures that the Secretary of State has given, is he aware that currently 124,000 people are unemployed on Merseyside? There are 28 people chasing every vacancy. Despite the propaganda, particularly from Tory party conferences, where chal-lenges and gauntlets are thrown down and unemployed people are denigrated by the likes of the Bournemouth window cleaner, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when 55 people went down from Merseyside they found only five vacancies in the Bournemouth jobcentre? The Merseyside unemployed want decent jobs, decent rates of pay and proper training.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that new jobs are being created on Merseyside. He also knows—or should do — that the number of jobs now available at jobcentres is at an all-time record high.
    Mr. Terry Fields: Rubbish.
    Mr. Fowler: That is a simple fact. The number of jobs that are available in jobcentres is at an all-time record high. The fact of the matter is that unemployment is coming down and that the number of job opportunities is going up.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend note that, in the past three months, 53 per cent. of companies on Teesside have taken on staff and that 28 per cent. of companies expect to take on somebody in the next three months? Will he also note that in the past year large numbers of companies—some 6,000— registered for VAT purposes in the northern region? That is the reason why so many jobs are being created in the northern region, and it may well be time for the Labour councils that plague our region

    907
    with unemployment figures displayed on every town hall to stop embarrassing themselves and the region and take those figures down.
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The rate of unemployment is coming down fastest in areas such as the west midlands, Wales and the north-west. That trend is not remotely confined to the south and the southeast. The decrease in unemployment in the country is affecting every region.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State put the fall in unemployment in context? First, 20 years ago people would hardly have believed that we could have such a level of unemployment without it provoking a bloody revolution. Secondly, three quarters of new employees since 1984 are accounted for by part-time work. A high proportion of those people are doing part-time work only because they cannot get a full-time job.
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman does not look at the figures that are available to him. The labour force survey shows that most people working part-time want to do so because it is an option available to them. He also avoids the point that, since 1983, some 1,362,000 new jobs have been created. What I find extraordinary about the Opposition's attitude today is that they take no pleasure in the fact that unemployment is undoubtedly coming down in this country.

    Self-employment
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the increase of self-employment since 1983.
    Mr. Cope: Self-employment has a very important role to play in the regeneration of the economy and in the reduction of unemployment. Since 1983 the estimated number of self-employed people in the United Kingdom has risen from 2.2 million to 2.7 million—an increase of about 23 per cent.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. Can he confirm that they represent a substantial reversal of the post-war trend in self-employment? Can he also confirm that the enterprise allowance scheme is one of the main contributory factors in achieving such a substantial increase?
    Mr. Cope: The numbers in self-employment fell in the 1970s and have risen from 1·9 million in 1979. Since the enterprise allowance scheme started, almost 290,000 unemployed people have been helped by it to start their own businesses.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that part of the increase in self-employment has been in the construction industry, which has led to a position in which there is little training for craftsmen in the industry, safety regulations are being ignored, the cowboys are increasingly taking over and people are not getting a good deal? Is it not time that the Government faced the fact that lump labour in the construction industry is serious for its future, and is it not about time that it was stopped?
    Mr. Cope: Lump labour is not a novelty of the period of this Government. Self-employment has grown and it is right that it should have done so.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons for the welcome reduction in unemployment
    908
    on Merseyside is the fact that 6,000 people are in receipt of the enterprise allowance? Is he also aware that that figure was given out at the recent conference called "Business Opportunities on Merseyside" and at the launch of the small enterprise scheme, which my hon. Friend attended last Friday? Is it not a pity that no hon. Members from the city of Liverpool were present at either of those occasions?
    Mr. Heffer: Not true. I was there, and the hon. Gentlman knows it.
    Mr. Porter rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Cope: I did not have the pleasure of seeing the hon. Gentleman at the function that I attended and to which my hon. Friend referred. If the hon. Gentleman was there, I am glad. The EAS is certainly playing its part in improving the employment figures on Merseyside — as it is elsewhere.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Government must know that self-employment must be seen in the light of high unemployment. We all know that self-employment rises at times such as this, as it did in the 1930s, and as it has done over the past eight years. Despite the mood of self-congratulation in which the Government appear to be this afternoon, unemployment has come down by only a fifth of the amount by which it has risen by since 1979—so that is a marginal decline. The enterprise allowance scheme will be seen to have succeeded only if it moves on to more employment and success. The evidence shows that it does not do that. It is about time the Government learnt that we need training and investment in small business.
    Mr. Cope: The enterprise allowance scheme provides that. Counting both the EAS participants and the people whom they employ, for every 100 entrants to the EAS, 122 people are working three years afterwards.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: In the context of unemploy-ment, does my hon. Friend agree that the increasing number of young people starting out in self-employment at an early stage of their careers is a welcome sign? Is it not a measure of the success of the Government's policy, and one of the reasons why increasing numbers of young people voted Conservative at the last general election?
    Mr. Cope: It is a most helpful sign, and it shows that the enterprise culture is working.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many parliamentary constituencies have had a higher rate of increase in unemployment than Southwark and Bermondsey over (a) the past three years, (b) the past two years and (c) the past year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): On 8 October 1987 unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey was lower than in October 1986 or October 1985, and at a similar level to that of October 1984. The numbers of parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain in which the unemployment figures show either an increase or a smaller percentage decrease in unemployment than the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency over the past three years, two years and one year were: 42; 102; and 107 respectively.
    Mr. Hughes: How does the Minister explain that within a mile of the City of London and the area on which the Government concentrate—the docklands—we have had a rate of increase in unemployment during the past two years that is greater than that in any other constituency in the south of England bar one? Is he aware that over the past four years we have had unemployment that has consistently been double the national average? When can my constituents expect less than 10 per cent. unemployment in the heart of the capital?
    Mr. Lee: In the London travel-to-work area unemployment over the last year has fallen from 10·7 to 9 per cent. In the local jobcentres that cover the Southwark and Bermondsey constituency there are presently 746 vacancies. If the Southwark local authority had not tried to block at an early stage projects such as the Globe theatre trust, which will, we hope, create 160 direct jobs, or had been less reluctant to become involved in the community programme, local employment would be a lot better.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that too often it is councils such as Southwark, with profligate and absurd policies, that drive out businesses? Such policies, let alone the outright hostility to, or obstruction of, Government schemes to help the unemployed, serve the unemployed worst.
    Mr. Lee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Southwark is a classic example.
    Ms. Richardson: Is not unemployment in Southwark and Bermondsey and elsewhere far worse than the Minister suggests because most married women cannot register, on the unemployment register because of their stamp position, and suffer the double disadvantage of not being able to take a community programme place because the husband is unemployed?
    Mr. Lee: The national rules stand and, of course, they apply to Southwark just as they apply to every other area. All our employment measures and programmes are available in Southwark and throughout London. In addition, a tremendous amount of Government money has gone into inner city areas, especially into docklands and Southwark.

    National Dock Labour Scheme
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to abolish the dock labour scheme.
    Mr. Nicholls: No. As I have made clear in recent answers to hon. Members, there is no change in the Government's position on this scheme.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that 40 years' experience of the national dock labour scheme shows that employment controls of this kind are positive obstacles —[Interruption.]—to jobs, enterprise and success in our ports and docks and are totally discredited? Will he now count the cost of this scheme and convince himself that its repeal is long overdue?
    Mr. Nicholls: I could hardly fail to hear what my hon. Friend said. The points that he makes have been put forcefully to us on a number of occasions, and I am sure that they will be put to us in future. In fairness, I should
    910
    say to my hon. Friend that a number of major ports in the dock labour scheme are in profit. I repeat that the Government have no present plans to change the position.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: If the Minister could not hear his hon. Friend I can assure him that he did not miss anything. Does the Minister understand that any hon. Member who talks about the abolition of the national dock labour scheme simply cannot remember what it was like under the old casual dock labour scheme, when many families who worked in the docks hardly got a day's work each month? The damage that has been done to our dock industry is a result of the decline in our manufacturing industry and the amount of exports going out through our ports.
    Mr. Nicholls: If the Government took account of views such as those of the hon. Gentleman, we would still be in the age of the cart horse.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noticed the difference in opportunities for employment between the ports that are shackled, by this scheme and the ports that are not so shackled such as Felixstowe, Dover and Rotterdam?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter and of the facts of the situation.
    Mr. Loyden: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) fails to understand that the strategy of the Government is not to take direct action on the question of the National Dock Labour Board, but, by legislation and by other means, to allow the National Dock Labour Board to wither on the vine. Examples of that are the development of non-scheme ports — that is happening now — and the Felixstowe Bill, which is intended to undermine, and at the end of the day to wreck, the dock labour scheme, which was introduced to protect workers. That is abhorrent to the Tory party.
    Mr. Nicholls: There is a certain irony in the fact that I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position will have come as better news to my hon. Friends than my reply.
    Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to protect and increase the number of jobs in the ports and in our exporting industries in face of the great and growing discrepancy between our port costs and those abroad, we have a choice? The Opposition will have to persuade their constituents of the need to end the dock labour scheme, or we shall need more Felixstowe Bills, or my hon. Friend will have to act. Will he please act?
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not think that I can add anything to the last remark made by my hon. Friend, except to say that his assessment of the situation is more in keeping with reality than that of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the lack of alternative job opportunities and the growing tendency for employers to use casual labour mean that the case for the scheme is stronger than it was a few years ago, and that that is why we welcome the hon. Gentleman's answer today?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the scheme has any popularity, he should talk to his hon. Friends and see how popular registered dockers are among them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Barbados.
    Mr. Maxton: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read the Scotland Bill proposing devolution in Scotland, which was published today by Scottish Labour Members? In view of the overwhelming support for devolution, which is increasing among Conservative Members, led by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), and in view of her repeated commitment to democracy, the right of people to choose and self-determination, will the Prime Minister give her wholehearted support to that Bill and ease its passage through the House?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, and in view of what the present Leader of the Opposition said about devolution in a previous debate, he must have done a U-turn if he proposes to give it his support.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend ponder on the anomaly that, having complained about a lack of funding for housing, Camden borough council has lost £6 million in paying for accommodation that was never occupied?
    The Prime Minister: That demonstrates just what a big, overspending council Camden is. The sooner the community charge is introduced, the better.
    Mr. Kinnock: Last Friday the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said that if the Government's plans for choice in schooling end up with a segregated system, so be it. Does the Prime Minister also say so be it to segregation?
    The Prime Minister: I am interested in the best possible education for parents and for their children. I do not think that the present system is giving the best possible education to all children, so we are giving them that opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about segregation, I am talking about good education.
    Mr. Kinnock: Any Prime Minister who cannot give a yes or no answer to a question about segregation condemns herself from her own mouth. Does the Prime Minister not realise that a segregated system would not provide a good education either for those put into the segregated part or those excluded from it? Does she not realise the difference between choice and segregation? Does she not realise that choice will lead to segregation, and that segregation will be the destruction of choice and much else in our community?
    The Prime Minister: I am interested in good education for all children. There have always been different kinds of schools. Indeed, that was the fundamental basis of the settlement with the churches in the Education Act 1944 and the reason why we still have church schools as well as county schools.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister disgraces the church schools if she puts them into any category that refers to segregation. We know that the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate apartheid abroad. Now she is to encourage it at home.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should define segregation before he talks about it. I am interested in good education for all children. From the questions that he has asked today, I understand that he is not.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ashton memorial, which dominates the skyline of Lancaster, has been most beautifully restored? Can she find time to visit it?
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to visit it, but I will bear it in mind. I am delighted that such a lovely memorial has been fully restored.
    Mr. Steel: In her speech last night the Prime Minister referred optimistically to a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons by this time next year. Does she intend that this country should make any negotiated contribution to that process?
    The Prime Minister: No. If the right hon. Gentleman heard the speech, he will have noted that the 50 per cent. reduction applied to American and Soviet Union intercontinental ballistic missiles, and he will know that there is no question— [Interruption.] If he heard the speech, he will have heard that. There is no question of putting Britain's independent nuclear deterrent into that equation.
    Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reported comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will have given great offence to many hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will never be any negotiations of any sort with the IRA or its apologists in Sinn Fein?
    The Prime Minister: I give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I would have thought it important that no one has any dealings with parties that support violence as a solution to the Irish problem.
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    he Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Prime Minister consider the action of a Minister regarding the cut in overtime and special payments for senior staff in the nursing profession? Does she not realise that the cut could mean the end of some of these nurses in the National Health Service, the under-staffing of major hospitals and the closing of wards? Does she realise that nurses are queueing up to leave the National Health Service? If, as she predicted at the general election, the National Health Service is safe in her hands, why has one of her Ministers had to go to the private sector at £195 a night to have medical attention?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government implemented the last nurses' review body recommendations in full from 1 April and nurses' pay has

    913
    increased by around 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Various proposals are being made which may go before the pay review body. They are not yet before that review body, and it will be for it to consider them. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman says about people choosing to go to a private service rather than the Health Service, may I point out that many people do it, including some trade unions? Of course, the trade union hospital, Manor house, is still open and available to trade unions.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Leaving the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the Leader of the Opposition, has the Prime Minister reflected today that after every big terrorist atrocity in Northern Ireland hopes of effective cross-border action have been raised and dashed? Will she now urge the Taoiseach to back sympathy and denunciation with full police, Army and air co-ordination on both sides of the border?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is anxious at every meeting with Ministers from the Republic to ensure that security is stepped up to the very limit of the capability and capacity of the Republic. I agree with my hon. Friend that people look to us for the best security that we can possibly provide jointly. We greatly hope now that the Government of the Republic will add to their efforts by implementing the European convention.
    Mr. Molyneaux: While fully supporting the Prime Minister's declaration that she will not give in to terrorists, may I ask her to assure the House that she will resist Republican demands for interference in the judicial system in any part of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I answer that question as I have answered questions on this subject on many occasions. The future of the courts of Northern Ireland is a matter for this Government. The decisions taken are a matter for this Government, and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend, during her busy day, find time to read early-day motion 275, which calls for the abolition of the dock labour scheme? Will she contemplate the fact that in 1970, when that scheme was brought in to preserve jobs, there were 45,500 dockers and that today there are only 10,000 registered dockers? This may be considered withering on the vine. In my constituency we had 92, and now we have 18. We would like to see the scheme repealed and the jobs come back to those docks.
    The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's point that we need to keep low costs in our docks to get the maximum number of jobs in this country. I have nothing further to add to what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench said about this earlier during Employment Question Time.
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duffy: Why was the Prime Minister so conveniently forgetful in her City speech last night? When commending Britain's economic example to the other G7 countries if they are to avoid recession and citing the threats to international economic stability she did not mention interest rates. Is this because Britain has the highest level of real interest rates of any major country apart from Italy?
    The Prime Minister: But I did commend Britain's example to the other countries, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he does me the honour of reading the speech in full. I continue to commend the example of Britain to many other countries in Europe, because it has the highest growth rate and the fastest fall in unemployment. Of course, I indicated that, when the United States has decided precisely what action to take to reduce its deficit and we know what proposals are on the table, the G7 countries will meet and take what action is appropriate to their own particular circumstances.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which was approved by the House in July? In the light of the complete lack of discipline in the Labour party today, does she think that a salary of £40,798 payable to the Opposition Chief Whip can really be justified?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend got his question most beautifully in order. I confess that that order is not at the top of my priorities for the time being.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: After lecturing other nations and holding up the absolute crisis in this country as a shining example at the bash in the City last night, may I ask the Prime Minister to take time on Thursday to meet a delegation of youths who are lobbying Parliament and listen to their criticisms of her Government's policies, which give the youth of this country no future and no hope?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense about the youth of this country. There is a great future and great hope. My speech must have been a good one, because Opposition Members are taking the chance to attack it so vigorously.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanley: Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will be gratified to have heard the announcement in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, that Pembroke lodge in Richmond park— both the gardens and the main part of the house—is to remain in public hands. Is my right hon. Friend aware of this news, and does she share the joy and relief of the thousands of people who visit Richmond park every year?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will certainly be consulting both the local authority and interested local groups on the future use of the lodge.
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Prime Minister put her money where her mouth is and ensure adequate funding for the NHS for cervical cancer testing?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has made provision for cervical cancer testing in the NHS, as the hon. Gentleman in aware, and we are doing as much as we can to increase that form of testing, because we are very much aware of its importance.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to send a message of congratulations to the British delegation at the United Nations on its recent and robust contribution to the debate on Afghanistan, which resulted in a record number of countries condemning the Soviet invasion of that country?
    The Prime Minister: It was important to try to achieve that result because, whatever the attempts at internal changes in the Soviet Union, there has as yet been no change whatever in its external policy — that is, on foreign affairs — including no change towards the occupation of Afghanistan, and we are anxious that the occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops should never be forgotten.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 November 1987.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister also give some time today to consider the future of the Scottish steel industry? Is she aware of the growing concern expressed by Scottish steelworkers about the future of Ravenscraig, following reports that the Department of Trade and Industry is determined to privatise the industry before the next election? Will she also comment on the future of Ravenscraig against a background of EEC proposals to reduce capacity?
    The Prime Minister: I have given previously in the House the undertaking that Ravenscraig would stay open for the duration of this period of the British Steel Corporation's plans. As the hon. Lady knows, it will soon be presenting its future plans and we shall consider them then.

    BALLOT OF NOTICES FOR MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Mr. Clive Soley

    Mr. Graham Riddick

    Sir Giles Shaw

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Road Traffic (Random Breath Testing)
3.31 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly, please—or remain for the ten-minute Bill?
Mr. Boyes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the road side.
The Bill is a response to the great public concern about the effects of drinking and driving, the widespread confusion about the current law and the fact that it is no longer serving as a deterrent. The Bill provides the Home Secretary with enabling powers to introduce a random breath-testing procedure, a proven road accident counter measure, to supplement the current powers. Random breath tests are defined as breath tests which are administered by a constable in uniform to a randomly selected sample of drivers at a roadside checkpoint.
Can the House accept that today three people will die on the road as a result of drinking and driving—and tomorrow and the next day? Can we continue to accept the frequency of alcohol-related collisions which comprise 10 per cent. of all personal injury accidents? Are we going to allow a repetition of last year, where such accidents produced nearly 20,000 casualties, 50 per cent. of whom had not been drinking or driving themselves? We hear much about civil liberties, but should we not be protecting the civil liberties of those innocent victims?
The social cost is enormous. In purely financial terms it is estimated at £400 million a year. In human terms, the pain and grief to families who have suffered a loss is incalculable. A newsletter from the Campaign Against Drink Driving brings home the true cost of those tragedies when it says:
"Just when we begin to think the future is bearable, a voice, someone in the street, a garment or an anniversary will suddenly reopen the wounds and we bleed inwardly again as we did in those first months."
In Britain, deaths arising from drinking and driving are three times as frequent as deaths arising from other kinds of violence, such as homicide or acts of terrorism. Traffic regulation enforcement is given very low priority, comprising only 8 per cent. of police effort nationally. Mr. Ted Griffiths, assistant chief constable of Nottinghamshire police, provided a recent conference with some illuminating comparisons. He estimated that, in 1985, the average number of breath tests given per police officer nationally was two, compared with 70 for Nottinghamshire and 123 for New South Wales, Australia, which takes its drink-driving policy very seriously.
Since 1967, when the breathalyser was introduced, the number of excess alcohol offences has quadrupled. In 1986, there were 100,000 positive breath tests, comprising one third of all those tested. The majority of police time, however, is engaged in the apprehension of offenders rather than in deterrence. A large discrepancy has been found in regard to the actual chances of being detected, ranging from one in 250 in some areas to one in 4,000 in others.
The Bill aims to redress the balance, and to resurrect "deterrent policing", in the interests of road safety.
918
Publicity campaigns have formed a major component of the Government's attack on drink-driving. However, it has been shown in other countries that publicity itself does not effectively change the public attitude. Publicity must be used as a reinforcement of the highly visible random breath testing to achieve its maximum impact.
Similarly, overseas practice, particularly in Scandinavian countries, has shown that severe penalties on their own also fail to deter the drinking driver. A recent review by Dr. Dunbar concluded that, while those countries had reached the ceiling of severity in their penalties for excess alcohol offences, they still had not controlled the drinking driver. All the evidence is that a highly visible police presence at the roadside is essential if drivers' perception of the chance of being detected is to increase significantly.
I believe that progress is being inhibited not merely by resources and priorities, but by the nature of our current legislation and the public's perception of it. As Dr. Murray Mackay, head of the accident research unit and vice-chairman of PACTS, wrote in a letter to The Times on 5 August:
"The present position in Britain is both absurd and invidious for the police. The number of tests administered annually is extremely low; this year I driver out of 80 will be tested. So everyone has the correct perception that to drive with an elevated alcohol level carries little risk of being caught. Yet the British police, to test for alcohol, must go through the charade of picking on a driver for some technical offence. This immediately creates an adversarial relationship between police and public."
There are a number of problems associated with the current legislation. First, the understandable caution exercised by police officers in needing reasonable cause for suspicion before administering a breath test means that many offenders will be undetected. That was recognised by the Blennerhassett committee in 1976, when it recommen-ded unfettered police discretion. Secondly, surveys show that drivers do not expect to be detected for excess alcohol offences, because they do not expect to be involved in an accident. They think that they can drive well enough to avoid committing a moving traffic offence, thus avoiding suspicion by the police.
Another problem with the present law is that the passing motorist is not able to determine the reason for which any fellow driver has been stopped, which fails to provide a sufficiently high-profile deterrent.
The Bill will not allow the police to single out any one individual and give him a breath test. It will not give them the unfettered powers recommended by Blennerhassett. It will allow them to set up roadside checkpoints and select samples of drivers for testing, say 10 at a time.
The point about random breath testing is that it creates a high-visibility roadside deterrent. As Friends of the Earth have said, it
"affects all drivers equally and means that the business man in his suit is as likely to be tested as the young man in a Ford Cortina."
The type of random breath testing that I have described has been introduced in many countries, including the United States, Australia and Finland. In all cases, it has provided an effective dererrent to the drinking driver by virtue of its high visibility, and, in practice, it meets with a high degree of public acceptability. In Finland, random breath testing contributed to a 50 per cent. reduction in road accidents. Introduced in New South Wales, Australia, in December 1982, two years after the legal blood alcohol limit was reduced from 80 to 50 mg per ml,

919
it produced a decrease of more than 20 per cent. in all road accident deaths. Michael Knight, Member of Parliament, the former chairman of the New South Wales Parliament's joint standing committee on road safety, has stated that random breath testing is the single most effective tool in the struggle to reduce the road toll in the history of New South Wales.
With one hour per traffic patrol shift spend on random breath testing, the New South Wales driver is screened on average about once a year. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has estimated that it would cost £20 million to achieve police and publicity levels similar to those in New South Wales. With savings of £400 million —20 times the cost of the implementation—this measure is entirely cost-effective. It is a sound investment.
Surveys conducted over the past 10 years have shown a hardening of public attitudes to the drinking driver. Despite police fears that random breath-testing might lead to poor police-public relations, public opinion surveys carried out this year all show more than 70 per cent. support for the measure. In addition, there is all-party support for the Bill.
A wide range of organisations support the introduction of random breath testing. They include the Association of Police Surgeons, the British Medical Association, the Guild of Experienced Motorists and many other organisations too numerous to mention.
There is also growing support within the media. Scottish Television and the Today newspaper have both joined the campaign against the drinking driver. It would appear that the time for random breath testing has come.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. David Knox, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. John Cartwright, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. A. J. Beith, and Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

ROAD TRAFFIC (RANDOM BREATH TESTING)
Mr. Roland Boyes accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1972 to provide for additional powers for the police to carry out random breath tests at the road side. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 55]
Opposition Day
  3RD ALLOTTED DAY

    Transport
    Mr. Speaker: I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.42 pm
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the harmful effects on the Government's policies on transport; deplores the consequent reduction in the quality of service across all public transport, the increase in fares, the increased damage to the environment, inadequate level of investment, the reductions in safety standards, the complete failure to give necessary backing to British transport manufacturing industry, and the increasing priority given to profit rather than service to the customer; and calls on the Government to co-ordinate services across all modes of transport, putting the user first.
    I am glad that we are having this debate today. even if it is not exactly on schedule. Having said that, I have to remind the House that this is the first debate on transport we have had since the present Secretary of State took office. I suppose it is my duty yet again to formally welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He is the sixth Secretary of State since 1979. The length of service of the previous Secretaries of State varied enormously. One lasted only 137 days. I do not know whether the present Secretary of State is getting worried, but I calculate that he is probably about one third of the way through his time at Marsham street. Each Secretary of State has left the Department with services worse and at a lower ebb than when he started. Therefore, this Secretary of State has a chance to redeem that record and make a name for himself. Sadly. on current form, he is not living up to expectations.
    I want to deal with British Rail ; with its service to the customer, and British Rail Engineering Ltd. When the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box, I hope that we will not hear any alibis or excuses from him. When we question him and the Ministers at the Dispatch Box, they proclaim ad nauseam that it is up to British Rail to propose and for Ministers to dispose. That is the convenient and similar theme we hear when we try to question them about the day-to-day British Rail services. However, that is not the case. The Secretary of State and his Ministers frequently forget the three-year letter of intent of aims and objectives for British Rail, which is a sort of contract between the Government and British Rail. That was started by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and continued by the previous Secretary of State.
    I assume that the current Secretary of State stands by the letter issued in October 1986, which makes it clear beyond a peradventure that the Government are the paymaster and that the British Rail board is expected to dance to the Government's tune. What is that tune? It is a simple refrain, which says that the state does best when it does least. From that ideology comes the belief in privatisation and competition. Perhaps I should put that latter point more accurately — the belief that Government should not intervene in the market unless

    921
    that is absolutely essential. That ideology distorts transport services, and experience shows that it does not work.
    Investment in British Rail is inadequate and based on the wrong criteria. I concede to the Secretary of State that, at present, investment in British Rail is high, averaging £600 million per annum over the next five years. However, according to British Rail's plan in 1982, that investment should have been £800 million per annum. The present rate of investment is part of the 25-year cycle of the renewal of the rolling stock. Therefore, the fact that investment is now 8 per cent. above the 1979 level is nothing to boast about.
    The investment picture is clouded and shown not to be so good when we realise that much of British Rail's investment has been financed by reductions in staff, which has decreased by 23 per cent. or by more than 40,000 jobs since 1983. We know that over that period asset sales have produced £370 million and that fares have increased. In addition, the Governments's cuts in the public service obligation have again distorted the type of investment. During the past three years, the PSO has been cut by 25 per cent. and in the next three years it will be cut by a further 25 per cent., to £555 million at today's prices by April 1989.
    The Government may not be willing to accept our criticisms of British Rail. I do not like having to criticise British Rail, but, unfortunately, my criticisms are valid. If the Government are not willing to accept our criticisms, they should consider two reports on British Rail that have been published recently. The first was by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport and was published just before the recent election. The second and more recent report was from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and was about Network SouthEast. I remind the House that Network SouthEast serves 18 million people and has 930 stations. That is a considerable size of business. Both reports reached a similar conclusion — that British Rail is still not getting there—and illustrate the point that investment is wrongly targeted and is distorted.
    Indeed, the rules and restrictions that the Government place on British Rail inhibit its work. Hon. Members will know that British Rail's finances are covered by its external financing limit and that it is not allowed to carry forward any underspending of the EFL from year to year. In 1982–83, British Rail was £75 million underspent on its EFL; in 1983–84 it was £142 million underspent and in 1984–85 it was £115 million underspent. That money is lost, but it is money that could and should have been used and put to good use. The conclusion from such underspending is that British Rail is discouraged from investment which does not show a return within 12 months. Winning back passengers and trade takes a lot longer than 12 months to mature. If one really wants to invest to get back traffic, the investment must be made over a longer period.
    The truth is that the Government encourage cost-cutting investment but not revenue-generating investment. British Rail has simply gone along with that policy. British Rail and the Government sometimes remind me of someone who has started a business course, learned the
    922
    part about cost cutting but then dropped out of the course and missed the point about expanding the business through investment to generate new wealth.
    British Rail should learn from its own experience when it has, quite exceptionally, followed the course of action that we advise. The St. Pancras-Bedford line received multiple investment on trains, track and signals. The effect was a 40 per cent. increase in usage, whereas if new trains only had been provided perhaps only an 8 per cent. increase in traffic would have been achieved.
    Those conclusions are validated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which identified a number of respects in which quality was not up to standard. The southern region has witnessed a 16 per cent. increase in breakdowns since 1983 and a 15 per cent. increase in overcrowding since 1980. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated specifically that "performance has deteriorated significantly". Cleanliness has suffered, largely because of the staff freeze.
    British Rail has investment and performance targets. It is interesting to note that, while investment targets are sometimes met, performance targets on quality are very seldom met. When challenged, British Rail simply changes its criteria.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Gentleman runs down British Rail. At one time I was a critic of British Rail's service to the West Country. However, for the past three years trains to the West Country have been remarkable. They are on time, they are clean, and one can reach Exeter in one hour and 55 minutes. I wholeheartedly recommend the hon. Gentleman to use British Rail's service to the West Country.
    Mr. Hughes: That is an interesting proposition. It reminds me of the country yokel who, when asked how to get to Newcastle, replied, "I would not start from here." It is not much good to those who suffer from bad services to be told, "Don't bother, brothers; it is all right in some other part of the country." I concede that there are good things about British Rail, but it does not provide quality over the country at large.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not the Opposition but the Government who are running down British Rail? For example, on the midland line from Sheffield to London, trains now run every two hours whereas they used to run hourly. Furthermore, the 125 trains stop at three stations within five minutes of each other and nine times in all on the way to London.
    Mr. Hughes: I accept my hon. Friend's argument. There are advantages in having point-to-point trains— for example, from Manchester to London. However, there is also a case for having trains that stop and pick up passengers at other stations. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend was making a serious point. We need to get the balance right. We need a mix of through trains and stopping trains to provide choice for the customer.
    Let me get back to my point, if I have not forgotten what it was. British Rail changes its performance criteria when it is challenged. The target used to be that 87 per cent. of inter-city trains should arrive within five minutes of the correct time. In fact, 77 per cent. arrived within five minutes of the correct time. British Rail now operates on

    923
    a performance criterion which says that 90 per cent. of trains should arrive within 10 minutes of the correct time. That should have led to a better service, but it has not.
    The story of bad service and overcrowding is repeated throughout the country. What is British Rail's answer to overcrowding? It increases the fares. When asked last summer and the summer before, "Why are you putting your prices up during the summer, when you expect a lot of traffic?", British Rail spokesmen replied, "We have to put prices up because otherwise people will use the trains and we do not have the stock to carry them." That is no way to run a railway.
    We expect fares to increase next year — some in January and some later in the year —and the letter of October 1986 from the Secretary of State made it clear that the increase would be higher than the rate of inflation.
    Mr. David Gilroy Bevan rose—
    Mr. Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion but I have a lot to say and many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
    Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the correct statistics on timing — I cite British Rail's own statistics — show that last year 90 per cent. of all passenger trains arrived on time or within five minutes of the correct time, compared with 84 per cent. in 1979?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must use his source of statistics, and I must use mine. Mine come from published reports and independent advice. The hon. Gentleman must judge the quality of his brief, just as I must judge the quality of mine.
    The Government have a direct responsibility for fares. A time bomb is ticking away in the EEC, and it will have a widespread effect on all public transport fares. Earlier this year, Lord Cockfield embarked on an exercise of harmonising VAT within the Community. His report was due to be announced in May. To no one's real surprise, it was not published at that time. Perhaps I am a little over-suspicious, but it is no coincidence that the report was not published when an election was due the following month. During the election, the Government refused to deal with VAT.
    Several of my hon. Friends have sought to find out the Secretary of State's view on VAT on fares. They have put down parliamentary questions. I have to admit that I have a little admiration for the Secretary of State's ability to stonewall and sidestep. He transferred as many questions as he could to the Treasury. Those that he could not transfer, he chose to interpret totally differently and discussed air passenger fares and liberalisation in the EEC.
    There is the prospect of VAT being applied to passenger fares. Passenger fares are extremely inflationary. They hurt the poorest the hardest. We do not know what VAT rate will be applied, but it will certainly not be less than 15 per cent. Indeed, if harmonisation takes place, average VAT will go up to 17·5 per cent. But let us stick with the possible 15 per cent. It will have a serious effect on the travelling public.
    On 16 July, the Prime Minister told the House:
    "Not only would this Government vote against Lord Cockfield's proposal, but a number of our European partners would do so as well."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 1422, c 1271.]
    She said that the Government would veto VAT on fuel, food and children's clothing, but she has been totally silent
    924
    about VAT on fares. I want the Secretary of State to make it absolutely clear that he will veto any imposition of VAT on bus fares, train fares, or, indeed, air fares. Unless he does that, we cannot clearly see where we are going.
    The work force of British Rail Engineering Ltd. have been most cynically betrayed. Promise after promise has been disgracefully broken. At the end of 1979, BREL employed 36,000 people. The British Rail plan envisaged that the company would expand to a work force of 43,000 by the end of 1984. In 1980, a new rail plan was instigated by the Government. In 1982, 5,500 employees had gone from BREL. In 1984, 1985, 1986, and twice this year, there have been further reductions in the work force. They will bring the current work force of only 10,000 down to 7,500 by April 1988. Further job losses are projected. The BREL plan for 1991, shows that there will be nothing left.
    On each and every occasion that we have been told of reductions in the work force, we were told that job losses were necessary to protect the future. The same tired old excuse has been trotted out every time — that modern rolling stock requires less maintenance. As an engineer, I can see that there is some truth in that. If there is less maintenance, there is less work. But that is not the whole story. British Rail's procurement policy has an even greater significance for the future of BREL.
    Before I deal with a general point, I shall refer to a more specific one. Hon. Members will recall that there was a contract for bogies for coach stock to be manufactured by Metro-Cammell. It was withheld from BREL on the ground that it was not ready to meet British Rail specification. BREL maintained that it could develop the bogies and meet the specification, but it was told by British Rail, "We cannot wait. We must place the order." Instead, the order was placed with a Swiss company. It is widely believed that that Swiss company cannot meet I he specifications. Unattributable sources within BREL confirm that speculation. Let us say that it is only speculation at the moment. I ask the Minister to give a firm guarantee that he will immediately conduct a full inquiry into this lamentable state of affairs and have the contract re-examined. He can do no more and no less for the people who work in BREL.
    It seems to me that British Rail's procurement policy is governed by the Serpell report, which advocated buying abroad in the interests of economy. It must be the only report that has been apparently officially pigeonholed that still exerts a malevolent influence over such a wide-ranging part of British Rail's policies. There is a grave danger that Britain's manufacturing capacity and export potential will be severely damaged. British Rail makes a virtue of the fact that it is undertaking the most extensive traction and rolling stock renewal programme for 30 years. No one would dispute that that is long overdue. The programme in total is worth £1,100 million. That is big money ; many jobs in Britain could be provided if those orders were placed in the United Kingdom.
    Tenders for the class 60 locomotives were invited from a number of overseas manufacturers as well as from manufacturers within the United Kingdom. The closing date for the tenders was last week and I inquired this morning of British Rail about them. I am glad to tell the House that only three tenders were submitted for that work which will cost about £100 million. The three companies that have submitted tenders are GEC, Metro-Cammell and Brush. They are all British companies, and I welcome that. I believe that foreign companies did not

    925
    submit tenders because our legitimate outrage that that work might go abroad frightened them off. I hope that the company that receives the tender will be successful in delivering the product.
    I have no doubt that British Rail and the Government will defend the decision to invite overseas bids on the ground of economy. Despite the outcome of that tendering, the point still needs to be made that no other state-owned railway system in Europe would contemplate orders of that magnitude and importance going outside its national boundaries. If SNCF were even to think of allowing companies outside France to tender for any of its rolling stock or traction units, the French Government would rapidly step in and ensure that the work stayed in France. We have defended British manufacturing industry, but it remains the Government's responsibility to protect it in the future because other orders will arise in the next few years.
    British Rail investment targets set by the Government lead to some startling conclusions. One conclusion is that the electrification of the east coast main line will stop at Edinburgh. British Rail steadfastly refuses to consider the electrification of the Edinburgh-to-Aberdeen line because it will not be "commercially viable". I remind the Government and British Rail that it is a national network and that the east coast main line is part of a network from Aberdeen to London and return or, as some hon. Members prefer, from London to Aberdeen and return. I doubt whether, if the Edinburgh-London part of the network were costed sectorally between the different stopping stations referred to earlier, it would be viable at intermediate points.
    The total distance was considered. The whole matter must be looked at again. Similarly, I urge the Government seriously to reconsider their attitude to the Dornoch-Firth rail bridge because I believe it is essential to the socioeconomic future of the north of Scotland.
    There are many topics to be discussed, and many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I am sure that some of them will take up issues such as London Regional Transport, bus deregulation and safety on our roads, in our sea lanes and in our air space. I do not believe that we should discuss the Zeebrugge incident, because the Director of Public Prosecutions is considering a report. However, I must say that the Government have not acted with sufficient urgency on safety. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will discuss that.
    I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not giving advance warning, but on Sunday evening, on the "Watchdog" television programme, an allegation was made that the Volkswagen LD31 minibus, which is often used as a vehicle for carrying the disabled, has a dangerously weak fuel return pipe which spills petrol on to the top of the engine. This has lead to a number of fires, some involving loss of life. The Under-Secretary apparently accepts that the allegations are correct, because he said that he expected Volkswagen to take immediate remedial action. I trust that he has not left the matter there. He should order an inquiry by the Department of Transport into the safety of that vehicle. I hope that he is not relying on a homily in a television programme on such a serious matter. I hope that he has the power to compel the refitting of a safe fuel connection on every LD31
    926
    minibus. If he does not have sufficient power, I can promise him that the Opposition will facilitate either primary or secondary legislation to provide him with those essential powers.
    I would have liked to spend some time on the issues that I hope my hon. Friends will take up, but time does not permit. I also would have preferred not to discuss the British Airways-British Caledonian merger, not because I have any inhibitions about discussing it, but because I believe that it is a proper subject for debate in Government time. Last week we had the unfortunate difficulties when the Government refused to make a statement on that issue. Government spokesmen hinted to me that there was no need for a statement because it could be discussed during the transport debate. I hope that such a debate will not hijack our Opposition day on the transport issues that we regard as important.
    I had hoped that the merger issue would quieten down, but over the weekend the plot thinkened. Therefore, I think it is necessary to say a few words about that. BCal experienced its difficulties because the Government's policies on privatisation and competition are incompatible. The Government could not afford to carry out the propositions put to it by the Civil Aviation Authority because they had to keep British Airways fat and juicy, and ripe for privatisation. In doing that, they provided the death knell for British Caledonian.
    I am not happy about the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Initially I had thought that the report was fairly clear, but a number of issues have since arisen. I read in the press that the first that British Caledonian knew that British Airways had concluded a deal to surrender British Caledonian's domestic licences and its three European routes, with the right to reapply for them, was two days before the report was published. That does not provide much of a basis for trust or for hon. Members to accept what Lord King says. When he was pressed about British Airways' ordering of the Airbus A320, he said that that depended on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If he is playing ducks and drakes with British industry and with British Caledonian, he must not be surprised if we scrutinise what he says. I have confirmed with British Caledonian that those weekend press reports are true. It confirmed that it is not simply speculation. That is quite disgraceful and intolerable.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I support the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. I hope that there will be a debate on the proposed merger. Does my hon. Friend know that the wings of the Airbus are manufactured in my constituency, that many hundreds of jobs are involved and that my constituents are concerned about the consequence of the merger on the ordering of Airbus?
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming my point about the type of merger and the important effect that that might have on jobs.
    The merger was announced at 1.30 am — I heard about it at 9 am on the radio—and I believe that the Government had no choice but to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, they had to do that once the announcement was made. The Government should have acted without sending the case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There have been three and a half months of uncertainty and we do not know how many weeks of uncertainty still remain. The

    927
    Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who speaks for the Department of Trade and Industry in this House, confirmed in response to a private notice question on the day of the announcement that the Department of Transport was told that merger negotiations were taking place a week before the conclusion of the exercise.
    In the light of the MMC report, my criticism of the Government is well founded. To paraphrase paragraph 8.70 of the report, before reference was made, British Airways offered conditional undertakings to the Office of Fair Trading — first to give up 5,000 slots at Gatwick ; secondly, not to oppose applications to the CAA by any other airline seeking to compete with it; and thirdly, to submit to any examination of routes currently operated by BCal, where further British competition would be desirable.
    Those three specific offers were made to the Office of Fair Trading before referral. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is a Member of the other place, knew about the offer. As a result of that offer paragraph 8.71 of the MMC report refers to the giving up of BCal's domestic routes and three of the European routes, the right to reapply and the examination of international routes by the CAA. The Government should have taken that responsibility on themselves and not simply farmed it out to another agency.
    Have the Government a view on aviation policy? Do they have a view on airports policy? Clearly they have not. Do they have any influence at all over what is going to happen? Clearly not. The present position is that we understand that Sir Adam Thompson is engaged in discussions with a number of European airlines. One airline, KLM, has withdrawn and is no longer interested. However, we know that opinions are being actively pursued.
    I do not know whether Sir Adam Thompson is serious. He might simply he trying to jack up the value of the British Airways offer which apparently is down to £100 million compared with the original £267 million. He may be engaged in a bargaining game. On the other hand, given the fact that he has been so badly treated by British Airways, perhaps he is serious about accepting a foreign competitor or a foreign partner. If that is the case, what is the Government's attitude? What will they do? Will they veto any partnership with a foreign airline if that airline takes a given percentage of 25 per cent., 30 per cent. of 40 per cent. of British Caledonian? What will the Government do about that?
    The Government cannot allow Sir Adam Thomson and the board of British Caledonian to negotiate with a foreign partner and then say that they are not very sure whether that is in the national interest. Will they then refer that to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission again, or send it to someone else to deal with it? That is no way to run an airline policy. The truth is that the Government do not have an airline policy. That collapsed because of the Government's interest in privatising British Airways, and they have no influence on or ideas about future airline policy.
    I have another point to make about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report. On page 44, paragraph 5.38 of the report rehearses what was offered and the consequences. With regard to the revocation of licences, a little footnote states:
    928
    "The procedure used would be to apply to the CAA for revocation of the licences. This would enable BA to continue the services during the consideration by the CAA of application for the routes."
    I welcome that to the extent that services must continue until such time as a new licence operator comes in. However, it would appear that some airlines which currently hold licences to which British Caledonian has made objection might have to apply afresh for licences if British Caledonian withdraws these objections. Some operators have told me that there is some doubt, even if they get the go-ahead, that capacity and slots would be made available to them. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer those points and try to clear up the confusion.
    Mr. Robert Adley: In the interests of fairness and debate, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman forgot to remind his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who has now left the Chamber, that the jobs in the factory at Hawarden in his constituency would have disappeared altogether were it not for the fact that an incoming Conservative Government reversed the previous Labour Government's decision to cancel the Airbus project. Before the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) jumps to defend the British Caledonian position, he should also remind the House that the Labour party policy on the Edwards report was against the establishment of a second airline in this country. We should have an honest admission on those matters.
    Mr. Hughes: I will look into those points.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to refute the idea that the Labour party was against a second airline. In the interests of customers, Labour Ministers supported the idea of the creation of British Caledonian. I was a Minister in the Department at the time and was involved in all the talks. It was obvious that, if we did not have that kind of extension, there would be very large private monopolies.
    Mr. Hughes: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was going to say more or less what she has said. I will look into the point about the Tory Government re-establishing the Airbus project, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) claimed had been cancelled by a Labour Government. I do not remember that, but I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. However, I will check it up.
    I have no doubt that, if there is a choice between British Caledonian going into partnership with a foreign airline or going with British Airways, I would rather it went with British Airways. At the end of the day, the best result for the people working for the airline and for the customers would be for the merger to proceed, and I will seek to defend the interests of the employees of the two airlines to ensure that they get the best deal and give the best service.
    I want to make it quite clear that the Government are in a muddle over a whole range of transport responsibilities. They proclaim their advocacy of the free market, but they know that the market does not work, has not worked and cannot work. The market cannot meet the needs of the individual or the corporate consumer. The Government are in a state of paralysis. They are unable to offer any strategy for transport. They are simply drifting. The sad truth is that the Department of Transport is

    929
    ignored by the other Departments of State. The Department has failed and will continue to fail the nation. I invite the House to approve the Opposition motion.
    4.17 pm.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    'congratulates the Government on the success of transport policies which have led to an improved transport infrastructure through increased investment whilst reducing the proportion of gross domestic product taken up by public expenditure, which have provided better value for money for taxpayers, ratepayers and industry, and which have increased choice of service to the customer; and furthermore notes with approval the Government's policies to safeguard the environment and to maintain and improve transport safety standards.'
    I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity that the Opposition have given me today to publicise the achievements of the Government over the past eight years. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to stress the improved service to the customer that we have created. We intend to continue with that. However, first I must thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for his kind personal references to me. I note that he said that I will last only 137 days, a little longer than Napoleon, but not much. I shall do my best to hang on for a little longer than that.
    The theme that runs through all of our transport policies is to provide the best transport service for the customer at the least cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer. I intend to consider Network SouthEast in some detail later. However, transport by road, rail, sea and air is a vital part of Britain's economic success. We all know that we are in the seventh successive year of steady growth. Industrial production is at its highest ever level and this country's transport system has played a great part in that success.
    I shall highlight four sectors of solid achievement in which we propose to go further during this Parliament. These are, a massive investment in transport infrastructure; obtaining value for public money ; the unprecedented increase in competition in transport; and improving safety, which was a point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made.
    I am sure that hon. Members will find it extraordinary, when they analyse the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, which lasted about 37 minutes, that he did not once mention roads, except in relation to road safety. Over 80 per cent. of freight by volume in the United Kingdom travels by road. Some 90 per cent. of passengers are carried by car, taxi, bus or coach. Some two-thirds of households in the United Kingdom have regular access to a car, yet in its motion the Labour party does not mention roads.
    An effective road system, by cutting transport costs, makes a vital contribution to national economic prosperity. That is not a new discovery ; the only difference is that the Government have delivered a road programme that is almost one-third larger, in real terms, than it was in 1979.
    Mr. Flannery: Half of it has been coned off.
    Mr. Channon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the subject of cones. The only reason why there are
    930
    so many cones on the motorways is that the Labour Government neglected maintenance ; I have had to spend money to catch up. By 1992 I shall have caught up on the years of neglect of motorway and trunk road maintenance, which was initiated largely by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) after the IMF crisis.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
    Mr. Elliot Morley rose—
    Mr. Channon: We have completed no fewer than 216 schemes and they have added 733 miles to the national network. Some 76 bypasses have been opened to take through traffic away from towns and villages. Since April 1987 we have opened 19 new road schemes, nine of which were bypasses.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Channon: I shall finish this point and give way.
    In the 1985 review of the road programme 51 schemes were added. Earlier this year a further 82 schemes were added.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State tell us on what evidence his statement that since 1979 far more money has been spent per mile of motorway on maintenance is based? Will he tell us to what extent this problem has been caused by heavy lorries? For example, in south Wales, during the miners' strike, on the motorway between Port Talbot and Newport, one could see the ruts that were being caused by these heavy vehicles, which were clearly breaking the law.
    Mr. Channon: I shall deal with that point a little later.
    This year we plan to start schemes to add over 150 miles of road to the national network. The forward programme embraces some 360 schemes, with a total value of about £5 billion. Does that sound like neglect of the nation's transport needs?
    Within the next few years we shall extend the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham, the M20 between Maidstone and Ashford, build the M66 from Denton to Middleton, open the A1-M1 link and the A69 Newcastle western by-pass, improve the Al in north Yorkshire and upgrade the north circular in London.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the introduction of these schemes, but will the Minister say when they were first projected?
    Mr. Channon: Each scheme has a different date. I have announced the schemes that my predecessors added earlier this year. The point that I am coming to, about which the hon. Gentleman will be sensitive, is how the Labour party neglected our roads and how we are picking up the pieces.
    Mr. Martin: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Channon: I must get on because I must deal with rail, air and sea.
    As to local roads, we are providing £180 million in transport supplementary grant to help local authorities. That will assist over 300 schemes, including the £39 million Birmingham middle ring road, the Bradford city ring road, the Manchester-Salford inner relief road, the £17 million Liverpool inner ring road and the £40 million black country route through Wolverhampton and Walsall.
    Those schemes, which are at the heart of inner-city areas, will be an essential part of their regeneration.
    Mr. Martin: Will the Minister give way?
    Mrs. Ewing rose—
    Mr. Channon: I have a lot to deal with, but when I return to roads I shall give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North dealt at length with British Rail and painted a tale of woe and neglect. However, we should consider the figures. We have approved 20 major investment schemes, including nearly 2,000 new passenger vehicles, 96 new locomotives, and new cross-city links in London and Manchester. We have agreed, in principle, to sizeable investment on the international high-speed Channel services.
    Overall, BR plans to invest £3 billion over the next five years. Its planned investment for each of the next five years is higher, in real terms, than its investment expenditure in any single year since the 1960s. Since June 1979 my predecessors and I have not turned down a single railway investment project that BR has submitted. We have approved investment of £3 billion, at today's prices, and we shall continue to support worthwhile investment proposals, including those needed—
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Government have sold off BR.
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that we have not sold off BR.
    We shall continue to support worthwhile investment proposals, including those needed for BR to meet quality of service standards for the grant-aided railway.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Channon: Several hon. Members want me to give way, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) as she is an old friend.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We do not dispute the fact that there has been investment, but does not the Secretary of State remember that this is exactly what happened with the Royal Ordnance factories, when initially there was much investment, then a loss of jobs and then the selling of units?
    Mr. Channon: The parallel with the Royal Ordnance factories is a little far fetched. I shall later deal with some points that the hon. Lady may find interesting in relation to her constituency.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend made a cogent point about investment in British Rail. Will he confirm that British Rail has not reached its limit of external financing and that, therefore, the Government have been most generous, in real terms, to BR?
    Mr. Channon: That must be right, and investment expenditure, in real terms, for the next few years is enormous. If my hon. Friend is patient, he may hear some information that will interest him with regard to York.
    We have authorised 1,333 track miles of electrified railway: London to Cambridge, London to Norwich, Tonbridge to Hastings, Bournemouth to Weymouth, and east coast electrification to Leeds, York and Edinburgh, which is the largest single rail investment for 25 years and the biggest ever electrification scheme. It is well ahead of schedule.
    The average level of spending on electrification each year since 1979, in real terms, is £72 million. Between 1974–79, in real terms, it was only £41 million. Who has neglected the railways? Labour Members have made a completely bogus case about our level of BR investment.
    Mrs. Ewing: I am deeply concerned that the Secretary of State has not referred to investment programmes in Scotland or Wales. As to the specific point about the east coast electrification, is he aware of the deep concern of people in the Grampian region that the rail electrification will stop at Edinburgh, thus leaving the oil capital of Europe stranded in that there will be no electrified line running from Edinburgh up the east coast? Is that not ludicrous? Will he therefore persuade BR that investment must continue north of the central belt of Scotland to ensure that we can link into the network system?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made a similar point when he opened the debate and I understand his concern for constituency interests. Of course, we would not turn down any worthwhile investment scheme that British Rail put to us, nor have we ever done so. Any scheme put forward must be cost-effective. The same answer applies to the high-speed trains. We will consider any worthwhile investment scheme that is put forward.
    Mr. Barry Jones rose—
    Mr. Channon: I am glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman back—we missed him for a few moments.
    The Crewe-Holyhead—
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Channon: I must press on. I am sorry, but I have two other areas of interest to deal with.
    Let us consider BR's rail fares and quality of service. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned this. Over the past three years average fares on the railways, taking account of discounts, have increased by under 4 per cent. in real terms. In fact, average fares paid on Network South East, including Capitalcard and off-peak fares, have fallen by 2 per cent. in the same period. That is against the background of the highest level of passenger mileage for a decade—indeed, it has increased by 5 per cent in the past year.
    I recognise, as some season ticket holders recognise, that some fares have risen more than average, but that must be seen in perspective. I believe that fares must be set at levels that enable BR to invest in the quality of service that customers want and are willing to pay for. What really concerns people is when they pay higher fares without the corresponding improvement in quality. The chairman of BR and I are determined to ensure that fares increases are matched by increases in quality. I shall expect BR to report to me on the progress towards meeting those objectives.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Channon: No. I am coming on to Network SouthEast and the challenge that was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.
    Investment in Network SouthEast and elsewhere has helped to improve BR's quality of service. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North mentioned the new Bedford-St. Pancras line and I am glad I have his support for that. The Great Eastern multiple units will alleviate overcrowding on those lines. Since I have taken office the electrification of the East Grinstead line has been completed. New rolling stock will be made available in Essex and Cambridgeshire, along with major station

    933
    refurbishments and signal improvements. I accept that there is a great deal further to go, but steps are being taken to improve services.
    I am delighted to tell the House that I have, today, approved BR investment in Super Sprinters. My approval will give BR authorisation to build 204 new vehicles at a cost of nearly £69 million. They will operate on main lines in Scotland, on the north trans-Pennine route, on some express routes in the midlands and between Cardiff and the south coast. So much for the neglect of rail.
    I now wish to deal with British Rail Engineering Ltd. I regret the redundancies that have occurred over the past few years at BREL. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was generous enough to accept that those redundancies were caused by the modernisation—
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Partly caused.
    Mr. Channon: Partly caused in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I believe that the main cause was the modernisation of BR's locomotive and rolling stock. We all want to see a modern and up-to-date railway — modern rolling stock needs less repair. The Opposition must recognise that. The growing investment programme in new rolling stock undertaken by BR presents opportunities for BREL, but it must compete for the orders. Since BR began placing new build orders competitively BREL has done very well. It has obtained around 70 per cent. of the orders, but it has lost others. If it is to succeed it must improve and go on improving its productivity and methods of production. Great strides are already being made in this direction by the management and work force. Great prizes are to be won. British Rail plans to spend £ 1 billion on new locomotives and rolling stock over the next five years and there are prospects of large orders for the Channel tunnel and the Underground. Earlier I announced the order worth nearly £69 million for Super Sprinters and I can now say that that order will go to BREL. There are bright prospects for the BR supply industry and for BREL's future within it.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement about the Super Sprinters will be warmly welcomed by BREL employees? However, is there not also a need to secure the long-term future of that company? In that regard, and with a view to increasing further investment, is my right hon. Friend considering the question of privatisation?
    Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I am considering the long-term future of BREL with the chairman of BR. I want to see a secure future for that company and I hope to be able to come to the House before long to announce what I believe to be the best way forward. I certainly note what my hon. Friend says. There are great prizes to be won and BREL could win them.
    Let us consider investment in public transport in London. It is true that we plan to spend £1 billion on London's roads. However, over the next five years planned investment in Network SouthEast alone totals almost £1 billion. To that must be added investment by London Regional Transport—a record of £300 million this year. I propose to authorise spending at £1 million a day next year for LRT. That will provide for projects such as relief for congested stations — a large scheme for The Angel
    934
    costing £20 million has just been approved — 16 new trains for the tubes worth £45 million, including the northern line; a £135 million automatic ticketing programme and £150 million for the City extension, to be the Dockland light railway. Plans are in hand for the major re-equipment of the central line, which will start soon.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I wish to return briefly to the question of BREL. My right hon. Friend has said that, at the moment, he is having discussions regarding the long-term future of that company. Can he give us a suggestion as to when he would hope to come to the House with his decision? Is it likely to be before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
    Mr. Channon: I shall be very disappointed if it is not.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give me a specific answer regarding the imposition of VAT on fares?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that VAT and the application of taxation policies are entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said on numerous occasions. The hon. Gentleman's questions have been answered by my right hon. Friend and I must refer the hon. Gentleman to them.
    Regional airports are extremely important. Since 1979 we have authorised £240 million worth of capital expenditure specifically for regional airports. That sum should be compared with the £16 million spent in the five years of the previous Labour Government — it is 10 times higher. There is a brand new terminal at Birmingham and substantial terminal extensions have taken place at Luton, Newcastle and Manchester. There have been runway extensions at Leeds-Bradford and Manchester. Once again, vital national assets have been significantly improved and extended. If we asked anyone in 1979 whether it was possible to increase investment as we have done and yet reduce the total burden on taxpayers no one would have believed it. In real terms total transport spending has been reduced by 8 per cent. at a time when capital spending has gone up, across the board, by 5 per cent. We are also spending considerably more on roads.
    Now let us consider contraflows.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Channon: I would like to give way, but I have been going 20 minutes and I have a lot more to say.
    Everyone in the House is infuriated by cones and the resulting delays. Many contraflows are precisely the result of the neglect of central maintenance in the late 1970s. The cones are a monument to the mistakes of previous Administrations, who, by putting off essential main-tenance, cost the nation more in the long run. In 1979 there was a substantial backlog in motorway maintenance. I intend to spend on maintenance more than double the 1979 level in real terms. We intend to renew the greatest ever length of motorway in one year and to eliminate the backlog by 1992. We shall also get value for money with our lane rental scheme, rewards for speedy work and penalties for contractors who block major routes for too long. Already the lane rental scheme has saved the taxpayer £8 million and road users 500 days of delay.

    935
    Those hon. Members who complain should remember that it is their fault that maintenance has been neglected in the past.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin rose—
    Mr. Flannery rose—
    Mr. Channon: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) because I promised to do so earlier.
    Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the fact that it is the increasing size of heavy lorries that is destroying the roadways. The right hon. Gentleman has said that money is being invested, but he has not mentioned the fundamental cause of the breakdown and destruction of our roads. Surely that is worth talking about.
    Mr. Channon: Of course, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My point—it is a valid one—is that, whatever criticisms the hon. Gentleman has of me, at least I and my predecessors are and have been providing a service for the country by increasing capital investment in almost every section of transport to an extent that is unparalleled in the history of transport here. Yet the motion criticises us.
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett rose—
    Mr. Channon: I am sorry, but I must press on.
    It is interesting that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not examine bus deregulation. The industry has been liberated from 50 years of control, which led to a vicious circle of rising costs, fares and subsidies. Opposition Members said that bus services would collapse after deregulation ; in fact, mileage has increased by 12 per cent. in the past year, and by 17 per cent. in the shire counties. Mini-buses are now operating in 250 areas. Our critics said that no subsidies would mean no buses. In fact, since D-day, more than 400 new operators have entered the market, there are reports of competition in more than 100 areas and the mileage run by the private sector has increased by three quarters. The prospect of competition has ensured that 85 per cent. of bus miles are run commercially without subsidy. The dog did not bark in the night. It is interesting that no one criticises the position now.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Channon: If the House will allow me, I must press on ; otherwise, I shall be here until 10 pm.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State promised that he would give way to me when he mentioned roads. When motorways are built in inner cities, they split up and divide communities and cause a great deal of planning blight. Glasgow has many positive points, but many of its communities have disappeared off the face of the earth.
    Can the Secretary of State assure the House that those officials who are known to be suffering from motorway madness will not be allowed to put motorways through cities and communities in which they are not necessary, and will he scrutinise all proposals to prevent such measures from being taken?
    Mr. Channon: Of course, I shall scrutinise any proposals, and I entirely agree that motorways must be
    936
    planned sensitively —as must large trunk roads, too. I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has told me about the position in Glasgow.
    The House will expect me to say a word about the British Airways—British Caledonian merger. The House knows that, following the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the announcement made by my right hon. and noble Friend last Wednesday, the ball is now firmly in the court of those companies. They must now decide what to do. The objectives of the Government's airline competition policy are set out in the 1984 White Paper on airline competition policy and they remain today as they were then. The objectives were, first, to encourage a competitive multi-airline industry with a variety of airlines serving travellers' needs and strong enough to compete aggressively against foreign airlines. The second objective was to promote competition in all markets — international and domestic — by working to reduce restrictions on services and making it easier for new airlines to enter the market. The third objective was to ensure adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour by airlines.
    The proposed merger offers a number of benefits. It would strengthen the international competitive position of the British industry in a world that is moving towards larger carriers. It would remove the present uncertainty about British Caledonian's future and provide opportunities for improved efficiency. However, we must also continue to promote competition within the United Kingdom industry and provide suitable safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour.
    The proposals that British Airways put to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will, if the merger proceeds, open up new opportunities for other British airlines. Such airlines will be free to apply for licences to serve five major domestic routes from Gatwick and they will be able to compete for 10 major destinations in Europe. It would be wrong of me, in view of my appellate position, to comment on the likely outcome of any applications by other airlines for licences returned by the merged airline, but I should be surprised, in view of their record, if none of them could make a good case.
    As important as licences are airport slots. BA proposes to surrender the slots associated with any services for which the licences are returned and which are not re-issued to British Airways. As a minimum, British Airways will surrender 5,000 slots at Gatwick, spread throughout the year. Those will provide opportunities for other airlines to develop services at Gatwick. Before the merger proposal was announced, the CAA was engaged in public consultations about the licensing policies that it should adopt on market entry and anti-competitive behaviour. I have discussed the scope and timing of these consultations with the chairman of the CAA, and the subject of whether any other issues should be covered. The chairman has said that he intends to relaunch these consultations as soon as possible after it is known whether the proposed merger is to go ahead. He also intends to extend them to include substitution policy, tariff deregulation and alternative licensing procedures. I shall keep the House in touch about that.
    I am sure that most hon. Members would have preferred British Caledonian to prosper as an independent airline. However, British Caledonian may conclude that a merger on the basis set out in the Commission's report would be preferable to trying to continue alone. I am

    937
    satisfied that the continued existence of an independent BCal is not essential to the development of a sound and competitive multi-airline industry. However, it is imperative that if the merger proceeds, it should do so on the basis of the revised proposals put forward by British Airways to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have asked the chairman of the CAA to report to me a year after the merger about its implementation. He and I have powers for the regulation of civil aviation. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has separate powers under the competition legislation to deal with any future concerns about competition in the airline industry.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the Secretary of State telling the House that if, in a year's time, he is not happy with the merger's impact on airlines, consumers and competition, he will insist that British Airways disgorge British Caledonian on to the market again?
    Mr. Channon: I am not saying that, and it would not be wise for me to answer the question in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman framed it. What I am saying is that, if the merger takes place, the chairman will report to me after its implementation. I have powers for the regulation of civil aviation, and I have already outlined the policies that I believe should be followed in the aviation industry in this country. Let us hope that the situation that the hon. Gentleman described does not arise. With a merger that is as yet hypothetical, I am not prepared now to say what I might or might not do a year ahead. If the hon. Gentleman were in my position, he would go no further than I, because he would have appellate powers, too. The House will appreciate that no responsible Secretary of State could go further than that this afternoon.
    The success of our policies for investment, value for money and competition has depended on sweeping away many unnecessary regulations. However, we have reinforced one area and we shall continue to do so. I refer to safety, and I was sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said what he did about marine safety. It was wholly contradictory of what his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said during last Wednesday's debate, which was extremely gratifying to me.
    The horrific Zeebrugge disaster was a shocking reminder of the need for vigilance in reviewing safety standards. I am determined that no effort should be spared in ensuring that such a disaster never happens again. The lessons learned must be used to set new safety standards for passenger ships, and, particularly, for roll-on/roll-off ferries. Many steps have been taken since the inquiry report was published in July. Many of them will come before the House in due course, and it would be wrong for me to go into detail now. Nevertheless, I want to reassure the House of our commitment to ensuring standards of safety for passengers and crew.
    Mr. Robert Adley: I want to add my unequivocal congratulations to my right hon. Friend for what he has done. When his new Bill goes to a Standing Committee, will he accept, without too strenuous resistance, amendments adding one or two noughts to the penalties?
    Mr. Channon: I shall not resist them too strenuously because most serious offences have an unlimited fine. So an unlimited fine multiplied by 100 would be otiose. However, I would be out of order if I went too far into the details of the new Bill.
    This is not the time to deal in detail with road safety, but I shall say a little about it. Our roads must be safe. Despite the large increase in the number of vehicles on our roads, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people killed. The figure is down by almost one third since 1965 to 5,000 people a year. The House will take pleasure in hearing about that reduction. However, this is still far too many and our aim is to reduce road casualties by a third by the year 2000. No doubt there will be other occasions on which we can debate this at greater length.
    Overall the picture on transport safety is one of long-term improvement. However, as Zeebrugge shows, major tragedies can and do still occur. This is not a party issue. To achieve our targets we need the support of all hon. Members and the whole community. An exciting development in transport is the new co-operation between Government and private enterprise in providing transport infrastructure. The private sector finances new investment for a reasonable return on capital, and the taxpayer receives—often at no cost — a valuable addition to the transport system.
    In this debate I shall not deal with the Channel tunnel, although it is obviously in the minds of hon. Members. The new London City airport was built by the private sector and opened only last month. Roughly half the cost of work now under way to extend the Docklands light railway to Bank station will be met by the private sector. The whole of the cost of the eastward extension of the DLR will be met by private sector developers from increased land values. That is a massive stimulus to the regeneration of docklands. Further east there will be the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, also to be built by private enterprise. This collaboration of private enterprise and public initiative benefits the investor, the taxpayer and, above all, the transport user. We shall continue to look for suitable projects.
    Not surprisingly, the Labour party was critical of us today and has been critical of us in the past. What about the Opposition's policies? I had a good look at their manifesto but it did not tell me a great deal. There is a much more enjoyable document called, somewhat inappropriately, "Fresh Directions". The directions are about as fresh as a wilting red rose. and reading it is like experiencing time travel. I felt like Dr. Who in one of those early serials, going back in my Tardis to about the time of the Romans. In that document one sees all the failed notions and policies of the 1960s and even that hoary old chestnut the integrated transport policy that the Opposition have been hammering away at in this debate — [Interruption.] Here we go again. There is one wonderful section about more power to local bureaucrats and less choice to the ordinary member of the travelling public. The document says:
    "The Local Authority will design its transport policies through an overall transport plan".
    Alas, that is not the end because "Fresh Directions" goes on to say:
    "The Local Transport Plan will be a five-year strategic plan, supplemented by Annual Rolling Plans and will include a Public Transport Plan and a Road Traffic Plan".

    939
    I suspect that the annual transport plan will be the only thing that rolls — transport certainly will not. I look forward with interest to seeing what the Opposition's review of party policy will produce. We have not learned much more today about Labour party policy.
    Everybody knows that there is always scope for improvement in transport. If the House is honest with itself, it will recognise that over the last eight years a great deal has been done to improve our transport system and there are realistic and cost-effective plans for further improving transport for everyone. I urge the House to support our amendment to this ridiculous motion.

    Royal Assent
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Consolidated Fund (No.2) Act 1987.

    2. Dyfed Act 1987.

    Transport
    4.54 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have often wondered about the basic difference between state education and education in the private sector. After listening to the Secretary of State I think that it must be the ability to smile bravely and sweetly while skating very fast on thin ice.
    Mr. Adley: No one will accuse the hon. Lady of doing that.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The reality of the present perfor-mance, if the Secretary of State really believes that he has such a good story to tell, is, why did he find it necessary to wait for the Opposition on one of their days to bring it before the House? It is a long time since we had a debate on transport and that is why so many subjects have had to be pushed into one day. I should like to return to the hard and unpleasant world of real transport policies in 1987.
    We are celebrating 150 years of railways in my constituency and I trust that it will not prove to be one of the saddest and unhappiest years in that long and proud industrial history. Crewe was created very specifically by a private railway company in order not only to service its existing rail lines, but to build a large rail junction and to create railway workshops. At its height, Crewe employed over 12,000 people. What is happening now? Even though that workshop has kept up with the times and is very well equipped, with high-quality modern technology and staff with a high level of skill, it has very real problems, created entirely by the lack of clear policy by the Conservative Government.
    When we talk about transport, it is important to realise that the problems in relation to British Rail and very specifically in relation to British Rail Engineering Ltd. have been created by political decisions taken by successive Conservative Ministers. They are not the result of an accident or a one-off relationship, in which somehow or other a very efficient organisation is allowed to decide its own future and its own investment plan. The problems are caused by specific political decisions taken by the Government.
    An example is the change that took place in 1979–80, when there was a new political approach. Although the railway workshops were perfectly capable of competing with any company in any field, nevertheless we were to have a report, the Serpell report, that gave a very different view of how the railway workshops should progress. At this stage it is useful to look at what Serpell said because it is extremely revealing. Under the heading, "Mechanical and Electrical Engineering", Serpell said:
    "There should be a full appraisal of the cost advantages of buying foreign components and locomotives, either purchased direct or assembled in the UK under licence."
    The report said that this would produce a number of clear and large savings. It went on to detail many of those savings, although it said that they were not totalled because there were all sorts of variables that might change in the next two or three years.
    Almost without exception, everything that Serpell predicted has been pushed through by the present British Rail management. Serpell said that there would be staff reductions as a result of reorganisation, and that they

    941
    would save £30 million. We are talking here about 1982 prices. Under competitive tendering, including foreign purchase, Serpell said that there would be a saving of £20 million to £25 million. With the rationalisation of the maintenance depots, it said there would be a saving of £25 million, and that by eliminating over-capacity and increasing efficiency there would be a saving of £20 million.
    In the next chapter, on BREL's role in the railway, Serpell said:
    "Because BRB has not sought competitive tenders, few firm conclusions can be drawn … with the exception of locomotives, there is no prima facie evidence indicating that … the cost of new build is excessive. Comparison with prices of US and Japanese manufacturers show that BREL coach and EMU prices are competitive. This is consistent with BREL's relatively high production of these units."
    Mr. Gregory: In again producing this historical document to the House, will the hon. Lady confirm that Serpell said, as a criticism of British Rail, that it consistently over-specified? That is a crucial element and has been accepted by the rail industry and by those building for British Rail.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Serpell laid out the plot of the new Conservative approach to building. It said, in very simple political terms, "If we do not retain much locomotive new build or repair in Britain, if we open everything to competitive tender, no matter whether it comes from foreign countries or private industry, we shall automatically make a saving." It did not state the effect that that would have either on the overall planning and efficiency of British Rail or on the number of jobs created in the engineering industry in Britain.
    Yesterday, in another place, Lord Young of Graffham said, in an interesting response, that the United Kingdom trade in engineering products, which includes section 7 machinery and transport equipment, shows a deficit of £3,370·4 million. Britain, which was the first country to create a rail transport system and has been in the forefront of modern design and technology, now has a deficit in its trade in engineering products. Serpell may be historic to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) but it is a very important document to his constituents who work in the workshops. It clearly shows them how they got into their present situation.
    The lack of clear management designs is obvious to those of us who have to deal with the day-to-day contract work. We have split contracts, outside tendering and the saga of the tender for bogies by a Swiss company. There are considerable worries about the way in which that process was handled — the specifications, the source of the information, and what is happening now. The fact that a Swiss company was given a major contract based on what looks like a computer assessment of its ability to do a massive engineering job raises considerable doubt about the management expertise which allowed that to happen.
    It happened because British Rail Engineering Ltd. followed the pattern laid down for it in Serpell. It has done that while saying to an extremely loyal work force, "Do not worry. If you will agree to accept new work patterns and new engineering processes, and if you will agree to a number of voluntary redundancies, not only will some
    942
    manufacturing units be stable but their future will be assured and they will be able to compete with anyone else anywhere in the world."
    It is true that they can compete with any other engineering workshop, but they are not allowed to do so. British Rail told BREL, "We will not allow you to tender for certain contracts because you are a wholly owned subsidiary and we will not be able to sue you if anything goes wrong." When it was pointed out that that argument could not be sustained, it said that that had not been the reason and that there were other difficulties. For example, we were told that BREL did not manufacture power units. BREL has never manufactured power units and has frequently bought them in, so that argument can hardly stand up.
    The four workshops that now exist in three locations—one in Crewe, two in Derby, and one in York—are faced with a continuing and constant squeeze on their work and on their work forces. There is uncertainty in investment patterns and 7,000 staff have been made redundant—5,500 of them in BREL and 1,500 in the regions. That has been a result of the pattern of concentration and special development units. For example, we have a signal and telegraph unit in Crewe at present. The closures have been consistent and continuing. They read like a roll of honour and of unhappiness for the communities in Shildon, Temple Mills, and part of Horwich. We are not told about the constant and increasing redundancies elsewhere. Swindon has lost 2,263 jobs and Glasgow 1,206, and still the redundancies continue.
    Men and women who for not one but many generations have given a loyal commitment to a firm that was always regarded as being among the best of the engineering facilities now feel betrayed and bewildered. They have no faith in management decisions. First they are told that if they agree to a number of voluntary redundancies, as happened in my constituency, their jobs will be safe. When they are told rapidly on top of that that there must be 1,000 more redundancies over the numbers already accepted. they can only assume that once again they have been lied to. They were told by those in management, who should know better, that their future depended on changing patterns of work ; yet when they complied with the very things that they were being asked to do, they were told that their units were still at risk.
    We have not had from the Secretary of State today any guarantee that BREL will continue as a viable and strong engineering unit.
    When we asked where the units would be built, it was noticeable that he was proud that he was able to announce a new programme. We welcome that very much, but he must note that the amount of repair work, maintenance and new build that has already gone out of BREL into other units means that soon four or five major units will be competing among themselves for a constantly dropping amount of work. That can only lead us to the conclusion that BREL will be faced with real difficulties in future.
    I was so concerned that I put down a series of questions not only to the Secretary of State for Transport but to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asking what had happened to Government overseas investment, which is so closely tied to trade rather that to aid. It was most revealing to discover that, although there have been many overseas programmes directly connected with the railway industries, involving the rebuilding of locomotives and the

    943
    improvement of rolling stock, BREL is not listed among the contracts in the answers given to me by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Therefore, it is clear that there is to be an extension of the present policy.
    If we dare to suggest that there is not a great advantage for British Rail Engineering workshops in always working through a private manufacturer, we are told that this is an unreasonable attitude and that, as long as BREL is doing subcontracting work, it still has work in the workshops and must be benefiting. Even the worst economists among us can work out that, if a company is always subcontracting work which it could do itself efficiently without a third party being involved, the profit from that deal inevitably goes not to the people doing the subcontracted work but to those holding the basic and important contract. That seems to be the pattern time and time again. British Rail workshops are expected to go for split contracts or they are told that there are problems about their contractual obligations — or, even worse, that there are difficulties for them in the way that development is foreseen.
    The Secretary of State said that I was unreasonable when I suggested that there was a pattern. He is a charming and talented man but I hope he will forgive me if I say that I do not always believe him. That is not to suggest that he is necessarily telling an untruth but perhaps it is not the whole truth, which is rather more important. The sale proceeds of a number of major industries are included in the amount that the Government use to calculate their own income and loss account. The amount that comes from the sale of state assets is very important to the Government. It is not just a question of dogma. They actually care about the cash.
    When we say to the Government, "Could it be that you are doing to British Rail Engineering exactly what you have done to other basic industries?", the answer is, "No, perish the thought. How could it possibly be so?" But the pattern is clear. First, considerable sums of investment are pumped in. We have had it in Crewe, where high-quality, expensive equipment has been put in at the expense of the taxpayer. Then the order book is starved, so that there is less and less work. Then there comes the constant pattern of redundancies in the work force. Finally, when the unit is much smaller and better equipped, capable of going anywhere and competing on any terms, it is privatised.
    The Secretary of State said, "There cannot be a pattern ; that may have happened elsewhere but it is not a parallel". We believe that it is precisely a parallel. We should send a simple message from the House to anyone who is even thinking of getting involved in that situation. The Government have made it clear that, if there is any investment in new rolling stock or new locomotives, that investment will not necessarily go to British companies, privatised or non-privatised. So selling off the workshops will protect neither the jobs nor the incomes of the engineering units.
    I shall not go on much longer because I know that many hon. Members want to speak. This is an indescribably gloomy day. I am proud to represent a constituency where the workshops are a major employer and where the quality and the commitment of the men and women are very great. They are deeply proud of what they do. They have abilities which in the past have always been highly valued. They are bitterly angry and deeply worried. They have lost their faith in those very people with whom they have so often
    944
    co-operated in the past. if those people in my constituency are betrayed and if they lose their livelihood, their jobs and their future, the Government will never be forgiven.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): As the hon. Lady said, many hon. Members want to speak. Brief speeches will cut down the number of disappointments.
    5.12 pm
    Mr. Peter Fry: I hope the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will not mind if I say that she made a commendable constituency speech which will perhaps strengthen her position at the next election. All of us are sorry when skilled workers in BREL are made redundant, but when the Select Committee on Transport went to Glasgow to see what was happening there, I was horrified to discover that although there were jobs elsewhere in British Rail, many young engineers were refusing to move from Glasgow and were prepared to remain unemployed. Therefore. that is a difficulty that the hon. Lady should remember. I do not wish to direct my remarks to that subject.
    In a year which has seen the opening of the Docklands light railway, the most exciting innovation in public transport for many years, the new Docklands City airport, the confirmation of the Channel tunnel, which we hope will provide British Rail with the opportunity for which it has waited for years, the successful privatisation of British Airways and the British Airports Authority, and an actual bonus payment to British Rail this year in a higher than forecast public service obligation payment, I find it difficult to accept the Opposition's motion suggesting Government failure in transport. Even if the developments that I have just described are supposed to be harmful, let us have more of them.
    I wish to restrict my remarks to one sector—the road network. Despite the increased programme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proclaimed since 1979—I am not ungrateful or churlish about that—there is a need for still further action if our problems are not to be compounded in the future. As a member of the Select Committee on Transport since its inception, I am aware of the difficulties that have arisen over the years. Traffic forecasts have proved woefully inaccurate, planning inquiries have been disrupted, resulting in long delays, and there has been a demand for heavier goods vehicles.
    I am aware of the slowness in preparing new schemes to fit into the programme, the negligence of previous Governments in performing the necessary maintenance and rebuilding of our road system, and I am also aware that some local authorities have diverted funds intended for the road system to other projects closer to their hearts. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend realises that I appreciate many of the problems facing his Department.
    The present position gives me cause for concern and the prospect for the future is perhaps even more worrying unless there is an unexpected and dramatic drop in vehicle movements. Traffic in this country is growing steadily and, in 1984, 1985 and 1986, outstripped the high growth forecasts used for road planning by the Department of Transport. The latest survey shows that, from the second quarter of 1986 to the second quarter of 1987, traffic increased by some 8 per cent. overall, and motorway traffic by 17 per cent. Anyone who has recently driven on

    945
    the M1, the M6 or the M25 will not be surprised by this. However, the Government should not be shamefaced about this. Their success in regenerating the British economy has led to an increased demand for goods and to the necessary swift and sophisticated distribution system that only roads can provide. The ability and desire of the public to buy more cars has also contributed to the increase in traffic.
    Mr. Richard Holt: In the light of those statistics and despite last week's welcome announcement by the Department of Transport about some improvements on the A1 in north-east England, does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been much better if the Government had bitten the bullet and built a motorway all the way from Doncaster to Newcastle?
    Mr. Fry: My hon. Friend is anticipating my speech. The Government's successes create some of their own problems.
    I would like to describe the present position. The figures that I shall give show that forecasts are too low. Very often traffic on new roads is much greater than was anticipated before their opening.
    Let us take, for example, the M6 between junctions 20 and 21 and the M4 between junctions 4 and 5. Those roads were built with a design flow of 79,000 vehicles per day and now carry over 88,000. The M1 between junctions 9 and 10 also has a design flow of 79,000 vehicles per day and now carries 102,000. I have not mentioned the M25 which was built to solve the problems of the 1970s, is not coping with the congestion of the 1980s and will be impossible by the 1990s. Between junctions 18 and 19, the M25 has a design flow of 79,000 vehicles per day. The 1986 figures show a vehicle flow of 117,000 which has risen in recent months to 130,000, almost twice the design flow for that particular section of the motorway. North-south traffic will be intensified by the Channel tunnel. The Department admits that, even when the M40 is completed, the M1 will still carry up to 140,000 vehicles per day on roads designed to carry approximately half that number.
    Therefore, the new roads that are being planned should at least be seen in a more generous context than they have been in the past. They should be built to a sufficient standard to carry the expected increase in traffic. I urgently ask my right hon. Friend to build the M40 as a two-lane motorway or before long he will be coming to the House to tell us how it is to be widened.
    Quite apart from the major motorway schemes, many strategic routes, such as the A11 or the A47, are being improved in a piecemeal fashion because present traffic forecasts do not justify the upgrading of the whole route. However, forecasts have proved to be too low in the past and the policy of piecemeal improvement is shortsighted. I well remember the battle that many of us had in trying to turn the projected A1-M1 link into even a dual carriageway. It was to have been a single carriageway, which would have been a disaster rather than the improvement that it will obviously be under the new specification.
    The result of all the low estimates of traffic growth can be shown clearly in the amount of money allocated to the Department of Transport for national road expenditure.
    Mr. Adley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend uses the M25 as much as I do, but does he agree that
    946
    undoubtedly the worst congestion, as on most motorways within 40 miles of London, comes within rush hours? The evidence of one's own eyes on the M25 appears to be that many commuters from the stockbroker belt use it for short journeys. Is there not a danger in ploughing huge sums of money into certain roads purely to ease journeys for commuters, often travelling in cars for which they enjoy tax concessions?
    Mr. Fry: I take my hon. Friend's point. Obviously, that is a problem, but those who drive on the M25 at many hours of the day will say that it is heavily congested.
    As I understand my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, there was a 2 per cent. nominal increase for 1988–89 over the forecast outturn for 1987–88. However, if one puts that into real terms — constant value of money—rather than being an increase, there will be a 2·4 per cent. reduction next year. In the two years after that, there will be a reduction in real terms of 2·2 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively.
    At a time when congestion is increasing, and will go on increasing as our economy is growing, it is a pity that the road budget is being cut in that way. I do not understand how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be expected to reduce the backlog of maintenance, to renovate the many roads and bridges that need repair over the years, having been neglected by previous Governments, and to start work on all the major new projects in his programme on a slightly lower budget.
    The problem has been compounded because the honeymoon with the construction industry seems to be over. For some years now contractors have been willing to build new roads at considerably less than the estimated cost. Unless the figures for the Newark bypass are maverick, the days of cheap road building seem to be over. The estimates for that bypass were well above the original ones put forward by the Department.
    Having said all that, even if, by herculean efforts, my right hon. Friend manages to maintain the present progress in his road policy, I hope that I have illustrated that there will be little alleviation of congestion on our main roads simply because our roads are busy and will increasingly be so.
    We often compare ourselves with other countries and think we are doing rather well, but if we compare the number of vehicles per kilometre on our motorways with those of our continental neighbours, we see a striking contrast. For example, in West Germany there are some 3,300 vehicles per kilometre on motorways. In France it is 3,940 and in Italy 4,000. In Britain it is 6,763. Those figures show the real need for an expanding road programme.
    To make the matter even worse, it is also clear from the Autumn Statement that in the area for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have direct responsibility—local government expenditure—there is likely to be a disappointing underspend. The figures show a 16 per cent. underspend and a 25 per cent. underspend on capital projects. Sometimes that money has been spent on other priorities. Moreover, the planning process is so long and complicated that planning delays often mean that road programmes slip rather badly.
    The picture that I have outlined this afternoon is seen by many other observers of the traffic scene, many of them exceedingly responsible. The average road traveller who uses the roads daily can also see it for himself. Congestion

    947
    is getting worse. I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's difficulties, but I hope that he will consider some suggestions.
    First, there should be a more realistic assessment of future traffic flow. Previous assumptions must be updated. They have proved to be wrong too often in the past. Secondly, road building must be accelerated. We must consider the problems of the 1990s and the next century. We must tackle the problem of what to do about an M1 that is overloaded even when the M40 is complete. For example, we should consider whether to widen the A1 or extend the M11. We should at least be considering a positive policy for the future. Thirdly, the underspending of local authorities should be thoroughly investigated and eradicated.
    I shall not weary the House with figures about how much money is extracted from the road user, but the increased use of the road by many more vehicles must increase the amount of money going to the Exchequer in licence fees and petrol and diesel duties.
    At a time when the Government's borrowing requirement is being reduced — all Conservative Members would congratulate my right hon. Friend on that — here is an opportunity for the Government to consider some innovation in finance for our infrastructure. We should look at what other countries are doing. The United States has long had a highway trust fund. In addition, for many years, it has provided for its essential construction purposes by a system of bonds which has enabled it to build many public utility works. The ideas of other countries can be imported successfully here. Indeed, construction bonds have greater application than to roads alone. They could well be used for the regeneration of our inner cities. It is time that the Government reconsidered the successful ideas of other countries.
    I appreciate that money alone is not the answer. It now takes about 15 years for a new major road project to be completed. Much of that is taken up with the planning inquiry and rather more inside the Department by officials preparing for and anticipating the reply to such inquiries. Often delays are caused by the minority making the same point over and over again—"we do not want any new roads". The history of schemes such as that at Archway or the Winchester bypass is one of a series of public inquiries dragging on for months because of the objections of a vocal minority with national rather than local arguments being used against the scheme. Surely we can find a more effective way of allowing legitimate objections without disruption and interminable delay. After all, if we can go ahead with the biggest civil engineering project that we have had in this country—the Channel tunnel—while avoiding this kind of delay, why cannot we do it with the new road programme?
    I suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider putting his annual road programme to a Committee of the House for approval, and that local inquiries should be restricted to truly local matters such as access, side roads and compensation. We should, perhaps, recall that our railway system was built through the parliamentary Committee procedure. If our present planning system had obtained at that time, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the railways in Crewe. The railways might not have been built. The motor car might have arrived, and railways might not have been found necessary.
    948
    It is high time that the Government, who have talked about shortening delays in the planning procedure, did something about the problem. I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade his colleagues than change is urgently needed.
    Let me sum up my remarks by saying that, while the Government have been very successful in developing our economy, their very success has caused new problems, particularly for road traffic. Because of the time scale involved in both building and planning roads, I believe that a reappraisal of their entire strategy is needed, and, in particular, an examination of new methods of financing. The Government have done much, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my saying that, because they have achieved so much already, some of us expect them to do even more in the future.
    5.31 pm
    Mr. Richard Livsey: A transport policy must have a strategy. Complete laissez-faire, in my view and in that of my party, is not on. In any transport policy, there must surely be priorities. There must be a mix between public and private transport: both must be taken into account.
    Obviously, the first priority in a transport policy must be the movement of people, which should be rapid, and also achieved at a sensible and reasonable price. Secondly, the movement of freight must be considered. Thirdly, the effect on the environment must be an important factor. Many transport policies are destructive of the environment. Fourthly, safety must be a major part of any transport system. The safety record for road transport is not good, although the record on public transport is very much better.
    A transport policy must benefit every part of Britain, not just the south-east or the parts that we have been discussing for most of the debate. It is rather strange to hear a major announcement made today about Super Sprinters, only to realise that, by my calculations, only 16 miles of track in Wales will be used by them. The rest of Wales, apparently, is a desert. I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to finish off what rail system we have left after Dr. Beeching cut it almost to the bone in the 1960s.
    A transport policy must also benefit the young, the old and the disabled.
    Let us examine the different types of transport. First, there is land-based transport. The roads, and in particular the motorways, have already been mentioned. As Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnor, I have to ask, "What is a motorway?", because we have to travel 40 miles to reach one, but we are paying for them. We do not know what an Inter-City train is either: we do not have such a thing. Some of us look rather quizzically at what is going on in other parts of the country, where massive investment is taking place.
    The motorway system is vastly overcrowded. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made some relevant points about this. The overcrowding of the motorways is becoming serious. Car ownership is increasing, and the number of units sold is increasing as well. I believe that I am right in saying that the British motor industry forecasts that another 1·7 million units will be sold in 1987–88. That brings the problem almost to crisis point.
    I have no option but to travel to south Wales by train in any period between about 3.30 pm and 8 pm. To get into

    949
    a car at Westminster and drive to the nearer end of the M4 takes longer than to go to Paddington, get on to a train and arrive in Newport. That is serious. I cannot contemplate using my car for an evening constituency engagement.
    The amount of investment in roads has been considerable, despite what some hon. Members have said. In particular, the investment in the M25 seems to have created additional traffic problems. I hope that the Secretary of State does not take the counsel of others who advocate another M25 to duplicate the existing one. Surely that is not the answer to our immense problems. There are many delays, much coning and vast quantities of traffic on the motorways. Coning has had serious repercussions in the past nine months or so. There have been a number of very serious accidents as a result of the miscalculations of drivers coming on to coned-off motorways.
    In passing, I back the second Severn crossing proposals for the motorway system, which is very important to us in Wales. I advocate—although this is not wholly within the Minister's responsibilities — the construction of a major road between north and south Wales, which, I believe, would transform communications within the Principality. Bypasses of some existing towns are also of major importance, and I feel that the Minister should pay more attention to building more bypasses around some of our more crowded towns.
    In the public sector, bus transport after deregulation has been a very mixed story. There have been some benefits in urban areas, but bus services in rural areas have been quite severely hit. They have been more expensive. There has also been poor timetabling, and a lack of feeding into national bus routes.
    I also counsel the Minister to resist the siren voices that are demanding an increase in lorry size from 38 tonnes to over 40 tonnes. This can only have a deleterious effect on our road system.
    Much has already been said about our rail system. I believe that the financial targets set for the railways have been too tight, certainly in comparison with other west European countries, where railways are more heavily subsidised. A case can certainly be made for more Government support, particularly in the light of the crowding on the road system. We need rapid, hourly, city-to-city services, and an efficient feeder network in the regions and in Scotland and Wales, particularly to feed into the overall network. We also need modernisation, and more of our railway system should be electrified. That will require more investment than the British Railways Board appears to be allowed at present.
    We need electrification on all our main routes. It is very serious that the south Wales and Bristol route is not to be electrified. Nor is the Aberdeen to Edinburgh route. That is because of the needs of the system to feed into the new Channel tunnel. Routes with no electrification will be at a disadvantage.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he tell us in what way he finds the new diesel multiple-unit Sprinters inferior to electrification, and why he is so keen that there should be electrification? It would
    950
    mean a substantial outlay in costs, and virtually no difference in what the customer receives. I should like to know what is behind the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Livsey: I welcome the new Sprinters. They are a move forward. However, they are not using the entire railway network but only what appears to be the central parts of England. I have already mentioned that they will use only about 16 miles of track in Wales. We would like to see that extended. Electrification will be essential to take the railways into the 21st century. Because of the Channel tunnel, electrification will be extremely important for through trains to the continent. We need to think about that and plan for it now. That is why I am propounding this argument.
    The Channel tunnel is an epoch-making development which should not be under-rated. It is essential that the regions of England and that the countries of Wales and Scotland should be plugged into the Channel tunnel system. I cannot see why all the trains have to go through London to get to the Channel tunnel. I have no doubt that when Brunel constructed large parts of the Great Western railway he was anxious to get to Paddington, but if he were living now I am sure that he would be anxious to take the quickest possible route to the south coast.
    Mr. Adley: It was not Brunel who built the South Eastern railway with a line from Tonbridge to Redhill and Reading. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the line from Redhill to Reading was built by the South Eastern railway in the 1870s for the Channel tunnel? Even Dr. Beeching said that it did not justify being kept open on local grounds but that some day the Channel tunnel would be built. Because of the criteria that the Government have laid on British Rail, that line will not be fully utilised. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in hoping that soon my hon. Friend the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and give us some good news that the line will be electrified as part of the Channel tunnel project?
    Mr. Livsey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I recognise his expertise on railway matters. In fact, he is covering a point I was about to make. I regard the development of Reading station as more important than some of the developments taking place in London. I hope that we can make the Minister realise that. It is a well-known fact that during the first world war troops were taken from Dover to central England and beyond via the route through Redhill and Reading. If one looks at the overall rail transport system in this country, particularly as it affects the west midlands, Wales and the west country, one can see that there is a great need for a through route from Reading to the south coast and that the route that exists now must be developed. Taking that transport away from London would be beneficial for the environment and for all concerned.
    There is great feeling about the loss of sleeper services in north-east England. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has made a powerful case for retaining the service to the north-east.
    I enter a plea to the Minister about the central Wales line and remind him that it travels through five marginal seats. Therefore, it must be of significance in the House. Will he acknowledge that that line is important for strategic reasons as well as for the people who live in the area?

    951
    I am sure that the Minister will join me in regretting the tragedy that took place on that line at the Glanrhyd bridge near Carmarthen. I would like to send my condolences to the families involved and remember those who lost their lives. It is important that that bridge is replaced as soon as possible, I hope before the 1988 tourist season. I should like the Minister to give us an assurance that that will be the case. I know that British Rail is actively pursuing new designs for the bridge and I hope that they will be completed as soon as possible.
    I understand that there is a new road bridge in Scotland at the Dornoch firth but that no permission has been given for a rail line to run alongside that road. That could be done cost-effectively and it would assist people in that part of the world.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends reject the conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the British Airways-British Caledonian merger. We believe that it made the wrong decision and that it is against the public interest. In the first place, the Government did not give British Caledonian enough routes to make it a viable airline. At the end of the day, it is the customer who counts. The withdrawal of a second major airline, which will be the case if the merger takes place, will cause severe problems, particularly for people in the north and in Scotland.
    There is no doubt that flights could be a great deal cheaper within the United Kingdom and to Europe. I know that the Government have been looking at that subject and I hope that they will continue to do so in order to benefit the customers, to ease the movement of people by air and to make travel by air a much more common method of transport.
    The use of regional airports is extremely important because of the crowding at Heathrow and Gatwick. I urge the Minister to look again at allowing more usage of regional airports, especially Manchester and Birmingham. I would also like to see Cardiff airport used a great deal more.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I noted the hon. Gentleman's comments about the British Airways-British Caledonian merger and his opposition to it. If the hon. Gentleman's party opposes that merger in principle, will he tell the House what his party would seek as a future for British Caledonian? It is important as a matter of airlines policy in this country.
    Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to answer in two sentences something that needs a great deal of consideration. British Caledonian does not appear to have had enough routes to make it viable and a reallocation of routes could make it more viable. That has been within the power of the Government. However, I am sure that there are many other things that could be done.
    Obviously the Zeebrugge disaster was a serious matter. I am the son of a master mariner and it seems that all the blame is being put on the master and the crew of the ferry. There is no doubt that the company has some responsibility in the matter. I know that that is a subject for the Director of Public Prosecutions and perhaps it is not right to comment on it too much. None the less, the role of the company in matters of safety should be of interest to us all. Certainly in the future companies should become more accountable. There are many important lessons to be learned from this terrible disaster.
    952
    Ferry routes other than those across the Channel, such as those in Scotland and across the Irish sea, are extremely important. The downturn in merchant shipping in Britain is serious. It is perhaps outside the remit of this debate but unquestionably it is becoming necessary for there to be greater investment in shipping and shipbuilding and the Government should provide greater incentive for that to occur.
    I urge the Minister to look at an overall strategy for transport in Britain. There should be a mix of public and private transport which will benefit all the citizens of our island.
    5.49 pm
    Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has shown, one would like to cover so many topics that one will either have to leave half of them out or gabble. I should like to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who have been here throughout the debate, for their courtesy.
    I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about ferries. Nobody could have acted with greater speed or determination than my right hon. Friend. I have already had an opportunity to congratulate him, but I should say that I have been in the House some little time and rarely remember a Minister being so resolute and fast in coming to conclusions about what he reckoned needed to be done in the public interest.
    Ferries are a classic example of totally deregulated transport. If we are to try to look dispassionately at regulation versus deregulation, the safety versus profits position of Townsend Thoresen, or P and O as the company now is, and Sealink looks rather like the Manchester City versus Huddersfield game of the week before last. As for Mr. Sherwood, with his obsession about the Channel tunnel, I suggest that he and his shareholders would have been far better spending £500,000 extra on safety than on a spiteful, nasty and objectionable publicity campaign against the project for which he himself once tried to obtain the contract to build. I wonder why we must tolerate the over-weight, over-mouthed and over-here Mr. Sherwood. Perhaps the Home Secretary will look at his work permit and consider withdrawing it. We should all be a great deal better off and life would be much quieter.
    We must consider deregulation in this debate. Bus deregulation has been touched on and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor clearly felt that it had both good and bad points. It is a little early fully to assess the effects of bus deregulation on the passenger. At the moment we are enjoying certain benefits. However, only time will tell how long they will continue or whether they will continue indefinitely. Whether the proliferation of small companies resulting in some places in traffic chaos is in the public interest, whether they will all survive and whether, at the end, we shall be left with a better or worse bus service than we had before are vital questions, but we cannot yet answer them. London Regional Transport is doing an extremely good job, but we must remember that in London we have not deregulated but nationalised. Before we draw too many conclusions from the policies that the Government have carried out—in many instances most

    953
    skilfully and successfully—we must try to tone down the dogma of deregulation. I say that to hon. Members of all parties.
    On one aspect of deregulation there have been some serious and damaging side effects that I do not believe were envisaged at the time of the legislation. I refer to the deregulation of coaches. Many more people are travelling on cheap, low-fare coaches, but in my view the effects on the community have not been anywhere near fully examined. The competition that British Rail faces from deregulated coaches is grotesquely unfair. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), when she was the Minister, referred to the intimidatory driving of coach drivers on many motorways. We all know that to be true, and some timetables call for quite impossible average speeds to be attained. Those timetables are used to compete with British Rail on commuter and other coach services.
    I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two fundamental questions, not only about coach deregulation but on the whole business of road versus rail. Why do we tolerate the situation where we demand that British Rail produces annual accounts and pays £600 million for its own track costs when competition from the coaches is a form of transport in which all the track costs are borne by the taxpayer? I am not talking about private transport and the private motorist ; I am drawing a direct comparison between the public transport costs that are borne by coaches versus those of British Rail. It is scandalous that no account is taken of the fact that British Rail must bear track, signalling, police and a whole range of other costs that its competitors do not have to bear.
    What about the parking of coaches in London and in many of our big cities? As Sir Robert Reid said to me a few months ago, if he were to park his trains at Piccadilly circus, the community would have something to say about it. However, quite regardless of the public interest, commuter coaches are scattered and parked all over London and many of our other cities.
    I must refer also to pollution caused by coaches. Stationary coaches often have their engines left running for hours on end. In the summer that is done to keep the air conditioning going and in the winter to maintain the heating. That causes unacceptable levels of pollution in many of our towns and cities. The Government should look at that problem.
    Has my right hon. Friend seriously discussed the coach situation in London with the Metropolitan police? I shall not weary him or the House with lengthy quotations from letters that I have received from Kensington and Chelsea council and Westminster city council. However, I shall quote just one sentence from a letter that I have received from Mr. Innes, the deputy assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. In a letter dated 15 January 1987, he wrote:
    "You will be aware that in the Central Area problems with coaches are quite horrendous."
    That is one side effect of coach deregulation. I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend: if we are the party of law and order, what are we doing to try to ameliorate the problems that some of our legislation appears to have caused and the problems that we are causing the police?
    I wonder how many people realise the actual costs that are paid by the coach companies. If I were to ask those
    954
    right hon. and hon. Members who are now in the Chamber to give me a figure for the annual licence fee that is paid for a 53-seater coach, I doubt that many would realise that it is less than we, as individuals, pay for the motor cars that we drive. The annual licence fee for a 53-seater coach for the pleasure and privilege of taking up all the road space, polluting our streets, parking illegally and providing unfair competition for British Rail is £87·15. It is well and truly about time that my right hon. Friend's Department took a long, hard look at the way in which coach companies are getting away with licensing their vehicles on the cheap, in comparison with the costs borne by their competitors and British Rail.
    I referred a moment ago to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. In my view, she was one of the best Ministers that we have had in the Department of Transport. I am sorry for those of us who are interested in transport that she went on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As long ago as 15 November 1985 she announced that she would introduce speed governors for coaches. The coach industry has conducted a clever and concerted campaign of procrastination with the Department of Transport. It is now nearly two years later —almost to the day—since my right hon. Friend made that announcement, but legislation has still not been introduced. We face a powerful and well-financed road lobby. I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us about some progress.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has said, we do not spend a great deal of time talking about roads policy. However, knowing his well-known enthusiasm for roads, I was somewhat amused when he talked about the possibility of the railways being closed. I wonder whether he or any other hon. Member could answer a simple question: why do we tolerate a situation where the safety requirements that have been laid down by Parliament on the railways for 150 years—and properly so—are totally different when it comes to road transport?
    Each year there are more than 5,000 deaths and 250,000 serious maimings on our roads. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone trying fairly to assess the virtues and values of one form of transport against another can fail to take into account the double standards that we apply in matters of transport safety. For example, why has there been no discussion of the extraordinary new decision to introduce in London traffic lights that cannot be seen from the other side of the road? When I asked the Minister about that a few weeks ago, he implied that the invisibilty of traffic lights from the other side of the road was likely to increase safety. That doctrine is new to me. The new traffic lights add to our stock of rotten street furniture.
    The age of the road vehicle and the internal combustion engine has been synonymous with the age of ugliness. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor talked about Brunel. In the days of Brunel and the Stephensons we travelled in style. We had good design and good manners. On our roads today we push and shove, and that results in injuries and unhappiness. Motorway madness is not restricted to foggy conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough talked about the M25. It is crazy to devote scarce resources to the building of more and more motorways to cater for rush-hour traffic, especially in and around London where we have a good rail network. Taxation policy and environmental considerations are simply not given the priority that they deserve.

    955
    I welcome with half a cheer today's press statement issued by British Rail and the British Airports Authority about the proposed London to Heathrow express rail link. It is proposed to build a railway line to Heathrow off the Great Western main line to the west of Hayes and Harlington station. That deals with only half the problem. We should be dealing with it properly and building a loop line from that point to and through Heathrow out to Feltham on the London and South Western line and providing a proper rail service from Heathrow to Paddington and to Waterloo. That should be seen not only as a rail transport investment but as an environmental investment to cut down the problem of excessive traffic on the M4 and other motorways.
    I welcome wholeheartedly the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about rail investment. He mentioned the east coast main line, the Windsor link, East Anglia and Weymouth. That is first class, and the Government are fully entitled to take the credit for it. However, I want to pose a question about the relationship between public sector investment and the use of resources from public transport. I think that I am right in saying that about 60 per cent. of London Regional Transport's costs are financed from the fare box. In Paris, Munich, Amsterdam, or any other European city, the figure generally falls in the 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. range. While I welcome savings that relieve the pressure on the public purse, I believe that there has to be a marriage between savings and investment. We desperately need new tube lines in London, and many of our major provincial cities need much better rail services. We are not doing our job properly and in the national interest if we concentrate solely on increasing the percentage of costs that come from the fare box without taking into account the other side of the equation and increasing investment in the public transport infrastructure.
    I have talked about the road versus rail question in relation to investment. We hear that the Government are to spend more millions of pounds on the M25. When will they spend millions of pounds on improving matters on, for example, the Victoria line at Victoria station? I fear that eventually the crush here will make the 1923 cup final look like a tea party.
    I am worried by the overcrowding on London Regional Transport. I welcome the Docklands light railway, but it is a great pity that, because of our determination to do the job half properly, we are building a railway which, in operational terms, is incompatible with the rest of the railways of London Regional Transport. We cannot run London Regional Transport trains on the docklands light railway, so this good little system will remain physically unconnected with the rest of London's rail transport. Frankly, were it not for the fact that the Docklands light railway acquired viaducts and track bed from British Rail for nothing, the line would probably never have been built.
    I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about the Channel tunnel, in which I declare an interest. I intend to buy 300 shares in the Channel tunnel—an excellent investment that I commend to hon. Members. I have no financial interest as I have not bought the shares yet, but I intend to buy them as a way of saying "Yah boo sucks" to Mr. Sherwood who has done a very good job of persuading me to invest in the Channel tunnel. I hope that millions of my fellow citizens will do likewise.
    Is my hon. friend the Minister aware of the strong feeling in the House about the future of the Settle-Carlisle
    956
    railway line? Is he aware that many of us will take the Government's position on that as a test case in deciding whether they are prepared to recognise the enormous efforts made by British Rail and others to improve the finances of that line? Is he aware that part of our nation's infrastructure is literally priceless, and I shall march unhesitatingly into the first lobby that defends it?
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Oh!
    Mr. Adley: I see that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat terrified at the prospect. Many of us will be appalled if the Government do not keep the line open by one means or another.
    We expect an awful lot of British Rail. It is expected to provide figures for us to pore over and criticise when its competitors' track costs are all borne out of taxation. I have a quotation from Railway World for December 1987, which shows how up-to-date I am:
    "is it fair that BR, forced on one hand to operate on a commercial basis, should be required on the other to act as a curator of a huge stock of historic structures that it does not need? As the problem escalates we could become faced with the absurd position of BR's commercial operations being sucked dry by a vampire load of conservation."
    It is a forlorn hope to suppose that the entrenched road lobby at the Ministry of Transport will do anything other than get its way but it is right to put those thoughts on the record.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. If each hon. Member speaks for 15 minutes—I have no means of controlling that—all of them will be called.
    6.9 pm
    Mr. David Marshall: It is to be deeply regretted that when voting in a general election the British electorate does not take sufficient account of the respective transport policies of the various political parties. I feel certain that had they done so we would have had a very different result and a different Government elected.
    This Tory Government have failed miserably on all fronts to provide our nation with anything remotely like an adequate transportation policy or with the necessary infrastructure for such a policy. The Government's policy, if they have one, is that anything goes. As a result, proper planning and integration have done just that—they have gone. The situation on our roads is chaotic. We have traffic jams, continuous delays, road works, lack of maintenance and cones multiplying by the million.
    We should consider too the chaos of our bus services —or more properly lack of bus services—in many areas. We should look at the chaos that regularly occurs in our airports and the frustration which will become more and more prevalent in air travel in future. We should also look at the staggering decline in our merchant fleet, and the difficult situation facing British Rail and BREL due to a lack of sufficient investment and the political will to make railways successful.
    I declare an interest as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union and as chairman, for the current year, of its group of 33 sponsored Members of Parliament. As a former transport worker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the workers in every aspect of the transport industry in this country for the splendid work that they do for the nation, often in most

    957
    difficult circumstances, especially in winter, despite the various Acts and regulations that are made by the Government.
    I commend to the Secretary of State and to the House a report published earlier this year by the Scottish Trades Union Congress entitled "Scotland — A Land Fit for People". Its section on transport is particularly good. I urge the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider it carefully, with a view to implementing a large part of it for the greater needs of Scotland's future. Two excellent examples are its call for a road equivalent tariff to be introduced to benefit the islands of Scotland and for a study to be made into the possibility of a roll-on/roll-off direct ferry service between Scotland and Europe. It is a disgrace that none exists at present.
    During the last transport debate on 22 April 1986, I forecast:
    "as a result of the Act, there will be utter chaos in Glasgow city centre … The city centre will come to a standstill…
    The sad thing is that there will be no overall benefit to the bus operators, because there just are not enough passengers to fill those buses, or even to half-fill them."
    In this winding-up speech, the Minister pooh-poohed my remarks and stated:
    "Those services are registered because operators believe that they can fill the buses, and that will mean fewer cars and less congestion."—[Official Report, 22 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 248, 266.]
    We all know what happened. Glasgow made national headlines—almost 350 empty buses, bringing the city to a halt. The worst sufferers were the travelling public, who were unable to travel anywhere. The situation in the city centre is now much improved, due to the withdrawal of many of the same services, but the city as a whole has a much worse bus service than it had before the Transport Act 1985.
    Although, nationwide, the position is somewhat unclear, and will be so for another year at least, it is obvious that the 1985 Act has been a huge failure. In many parts of the country, early morning, off-peak, late evening and Sunday services have disappeared. Fares have not come down ; they have gone up substantially in some areas. Co-ordination, integration, planning and timetabling have gone by the board. In some areas, crews have been forced to work much longer hours and have had to accept massive cuts in wages just to keep their jobs—in some instances, £40 a week. There have been thousands of redundancies in all grades, garage closures and the appearance on our streets of vehicles more fitted to a transport museum than the streets of Britain. Reliability has become a thing of the past, and the public have lost confidence in our bus services.
    Another victim of the 1985 Act is the bus manufacturing industry. It is in such a sorry state that I forecast that, in the not-too-distant future, new bus grant will have to be reintroduced if we are to have any British bus manufacturing capability at all and are not to become totally dependent on imports.
    Another total failure was the Government's much-vaunted policy of taxi sharing. As far as I am aware, it has just not happened, and it is not likely to do so. On the subject of taxis, the Minister is aware of the concern expressed by the Transport and General Workers Union about attacks on drivers, some of whom have been
    958
    murdered. How can he justify refusing to change the law to allow taxis to be fitted with alarm sirens similar to those on buses? Will he reply to that point?
    On aviation policy, unlike the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), I repeat my welcome for the decision to allow the British Caledonian-British Airways merger to go ahead. It may not have been the ideal solution, but the situation was not ideal. There is not the capability for two British megacarriers. Even the merged airline only scrapes into the top 10 big boys in the airlines world. For example, Texas Air is five times the size of BA. Having seen at first hand how some of the megacarriers operate, I say that it is essential that the merger goes ahead in the best interests of the British public, British industry and employees in both companies.
    What are the alternatives? They are the total collapse and break-up of BCal and an asset-stripping exercise by predators who are waiting in the wings, and substantial redundancies. However, British Airways and British Caledonian have a duty to support domestic services and jobs in Britain. They must neither neglect nor run down their operations, especially in Scotland. It is not asking too much of them to consider expanding in the north, in Scotland, and in other areas outwith London.
    The new airline will not be a monopoly. There is already tremendous competition in the industry. It will be no great surprise if one or two megacarriers go under in the next year or two. There are also plenty of opportunities for smaller airlines to get in on the act if they are responsive to the public need.
    However, I am worried about the long-term future development of our airports. Everyone in central Scotland now accepts that, if we were to start from scratch, we would have only one airport instead of three. It may be idealistic, but with the tremendous build-up of air travel and the massive investment that is needed by the turn of the century, an investigation could and should be made into the feasibility of one single international airport for central Scotland.
    London may be in danger of getting into a similar situation with Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, with the result that many international flights will go to Europe, with the consequential loss to our tourist-related industries. Perhaps lower fares in real terms and more passengers will prevent or offset that.
    I worry also about the continuation of Anglo-Scottish flights to Heathrow. Will the Minister assure us that at no time will flights be transferred to Stansted? Will he ask some of his ministerial colleagues to examine the fact that holiday operators rip off Scots, especially at peak holiday times such as the Glasgow fair, by extortionate add-on charges for holidaymakers and their families?
    I take issue with the Scottish tourist board and its business plan of April 1987, which states:
    "Scotland must become more accessible to growing long-haul markets, whether by increased direct traffic through Prestwick and/or available and inexpensive add on fares from London and Manchester."
    That is a disgraceful approach for the STB to take. It should argue for Scotland to develop its own international links in the market place and for Glasgow to be allowed to develop along normal commercial patterns similar to those in Manchester.
    The city of Glasgow has made tremendous progress, from being almost an industrial slum five years ago to

    959
    being the European city of culture in 1990. There were 700,000 visitors in 1982, and there are expected to be 4 million next year, when it stages the 1988 garden festival. Even the CBI has said that every city in the United Kingdom could learn from Glasgow. People now have a reason to visit the city. They need good access. Therefore, good air services are vital to the city, which is the commercial hub of Scotland, with spokes feeding out to all other parts of Scotland and to parts which other cities do not reach.
    I now refer to roads and road safety. The RAC, in its observations on Government spending plans over the next three years, has said that, contrary to some inaccurate statements in media reports, the planned increases are not in real terms. Taking account of predicted inflation of more than 4 per cent. next year, the cash increase will be a reduction of expenditure in real terms. It went on to state that there is no promise of the urgently required immensely greater expenditure to cope with the anticipated serious problems ahead, not least the estimated traffic growth of 40 per cent. or more by the end of the century.
    The British Road Federation expressed its concern about a 16 per cent. or £300 million underspend on capital and maintenance in the current year, the evidence that road construction costs have been rising and that insufficient funds will be available, as well as the fact that, according to "Policy for Roads in England 1987", published in April, just before the election campaign, 114 previously announced trunk road schemes will now have later starting dates than published.
    In its brief, the Freight Transport Association states that it is unable to corroborate the claims in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement that the budget for bridge maintenance on trunk roads was to be stepped up significantly. That is not in keeping with the Secretary of State's speech. Will the Minister tell us who is correct, the Secretary of State or the other people who have kindly sent briefs to hon. Members for the debate?
    To its credit, the Freight Transport Association also mentioned the appalling lack of facilities for heavy goods vehicle drivers on our main routes. That is something about which the TGWU feels strongly, as the Minister knows. It is disgraceful that there are no facilities for lorry drivers on the M25, the M20, the M18, the M180, the M56 and the M40. Surely the Secretary of State has a duty in this respect and must make provision for the necessary facilities as soon as possible.
    In Scotland, the entire length of the A74 between Carlisle and Glasgow, which is the main link between Scotland and England, must be upgraded to motorway standards in the immediate future. That was almost the only welcome election promise that the Tories made to Scotland, although I fear that they may be delaying its implementation. When will the M74 be completed?
    We also need the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse to become the M8 to complete the Glasgow-Edinburgh link. A motorway from Ayrshire to the M8 and the M74 is essential, as is completion of improvements to the A75 from Stranraer to Gretna. The A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen is totally inadequate. The Hamilton road route in my constituency is needed but I believe is somewhat delayed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next question."] Conservative Members say, "Next question." I am just illustrating the total failure of the Government's transport policy in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
    960
    The Government are attracted to seeking ways of involving private money for roads, which logically means toll roads. When one considers that taxation income from all road-related sources is some £14 billion per annum and that expenditure is only £3 billion, the Exchequer benefits from 75 per cent. of total revenue. As the number of vehicles increases, so does the revenue. Rather than use toll roads, most traffic would use the ordinary network. Has the Secretary of State considered that?
    There is no case for introducing yet another American system into our British way of life. Toll roads are unfair, unjust, unnecessary and not wanted. When will an enlightened Secretary of State abolish tolls on bridges and estuarial crossings? The Select Committee on Transport suggested that it should be clone by phasing them out over a period. They serve no useful purpose and they are a hindrance to local economies.
    One of the biggest road safety problems is drink and driving. The Government must stop pussyfooting. Publicity schemes and the like do not work. I fully support the campaign of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety for the introduction of random breath testing. I hope that the ten-minute Bill proposed today by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) succeeds.
    Scotland has been the guinea pig for unwanted and unpopular measures such as the poll tax. The Secretary of State missed a golden opportunity to introduce something useful in Scotland when, in answer to my parliamentary question on 2 November, he said that he had no plans to introduce random breath testing. That measure has been successful in other countries and I am positive that it would be successful here. I also favour the Royal Automobile Club proposal for a two-tier penalty system, which would impose much heavier sentences on those drivers who are well above the limit.
    I want action against drinking and driving. However, I do not support Scottish Television televising the names of offenders. Some idiots might fancy getting their names on television and many offenders will plead not guilty and clog up the courts, adding to the expense. Others, or members of their families, may be victimised. Not every drunk driver is named in the newspapers but they will be on STV, which is a sort of double penalty — a penalty imposed by the courts and another by STV.
    Today newspaper has jumped on the bandwagon and has published a four-page insert disclosing the names of convicted drivers. I appeal to my friends in STV to think again. If they really want to do something constructive, they should stop televising advertisements for alcohol, especially during the festive season. They could show pictures of some of the results of road accidents. I have seen some and they need a red warning triangle in the corner of the screen. Anyone who sees such horrific evidence will think and drive more carefully. That does not just apply to drunken drivers.
    Another problem is the introduction in 1992 of cabotage for the heavy goods vehicle and the public service vehicle industries. The Government are dangerously complacent in ignoring representations made to them by the Transport and General Workers Union. In reply to a parliamentary question from myself on 6 November, it was admitted that approximately 3,000 overloaded lorries enter the United Kingdom from Europe each year. With variable driving standards, lower wages and lower

    961
    taxation rates, foreign lorries and coaches will be able to drive around our roads at will, putting our drivers out of work and often posing real safety problems.
    If we are to prevent many of the 5,000 deaths each year on our roads, we need tough enforceable laws, backed up by a highly visible police presence. In addition, we need a new motorway construction programme for the 1990s and the 21st century. Despite what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has said, people enjoy having a car and delight in using it. The Government should take more action against dud MOT testers, car-dealer sharks who sell death traps to people; they should stop insurance write-offs being rebuilt, and clamp down on unsafe vehicles. The Government should do something to improve our rapidly deteriorating driving standards and behaviour. Those are all positive suggestions.
    The all-party Select Committee on Transport, in its report on financing rail services, said:
    "The railway network is a national asset. BR must be given sufficient funds to enable it to use this asset fully."
    A list of 29 recommendations followed. It will be another illustration of the failure of the Government's transport policy if they choose to ignore those reasonable and sensible recommendations. There is an unanswerable case for massive investment in British Rail on environmental and energy conservation grounds. It would also create massive employment.
    There is scope for expansion in Scotland. Direct rail links to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick airports are essential and would be well patronised. Electrification north of Glasgow and Edinburgh is desirable. The Dornoch firth crossing needs a rail bridge to be built at the same time as the road bridge. The Government's refusal to approve that is an absolute scandal. British Rail does not come out of that with much credit, as it accepted the Government's decision. I ask the Secretary of State to rethink and to do the decent thing for that part of the highlands.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) have been campaigning against the withdrawal of services, especially sleeper services in south-west Scotland. It is disgraceful that people will have to travel to Glasgow or, even worse, to Carlisle in England to get an Inter-City train. Does the BR board want passengers or not? Its policy of unmanned stations is also unpopular and stops many people travelling by train, especially elderly people who are afraid to use unmanned stations at night. Cannot BR have a change of mind about its policy?
    The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred to the Select Committee visit to Springburn, in which I participated, and suggested that people should move from Glasgow. Why should people and their families move 400 miles to Network SouthEast to get a job in British Rail? Even if they did, how could they afford accommodation? That part of the world is already overcrowded. If the Government had any idea, they would create work in the north and in Scotland, and would alter the north-south drift to a south-north drift.
    I have always argued that the Channel tunnel is unnecessary for British transport needs. Nothing has happened to change my mind. Although Glasgow has received some of the early contracts for equipment, that
    962
    is a short-term benefit. The project is a long-term Trojan horse, which will siphon off even more investment and jobs from the north to the already overcrowded, prosperous south, and make it easier for import penetration into our markets. Whatever happens about the tunnel, I hope that it will not result in British Rail putting all its resources into that one project at the expense of the regions. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that British Rail investment for the tunnel will have no effect on any of its plans for the rest of the network?
    We need the repeal of the Transport Act 1985 and an awareness that transport is a social necessity, by means of the creation of a national concessionary fare scheme for pensioners, disabled, handicapped and unemployed people, and transport policies that give priority to people. Some hon. Members may say that transport is not a political topic. I contend that it is, and that the Government have failed miserably. The electorate should take note and act accordingly.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. Patrick Ground: I hope that, after listening to the many topics raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), the House will not mind concentrating for a few minutes on just one topic. In both the motion and the Government amendment there is a reference to the environment. The amendment refers to Government policies to safeguard the environment. Recently a review was completed by the Department of Transport on the restriction of night flights at Heathrow. The proposals that were announced by my right hon. Friend within the last fortnight affect the possible regime at Heathrow after 1 April next year. Those proposals have important implications for the air transport industry. They are also potentially important not simply for people living around Heathrow, but for people living near other major airports.
    There are two points in the Government's proposals that I welcome. First, despite the pressure that has been brought to bear from some quarters to increase the quota of night flights, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has decided to reduce the quota from 6,800 a year to 5,750. Therefore, in effect, the quota is reduced to the amount by which it is being taken up. Secondly, I welcome the recognition, despite all that has been said about quieter aircraft in recent years, that many of the so-called quieter aircraft, such as the Boeing 747, are still very noisy, especially at night. Indeed, the consultation document published by the Secretary of State makes it clear that planes that have been described as quieter for so many years have a very noisy footprint. In particular, I welcome that fact that only relatively quiet modern aircraft such as the BAE 146 and the Boeing 757 are to be allowed to take off between 12.30 am and 5 am. That is a very welcome and important development. I hope that that period will be extended progressively to cover at least the period from 11.30 pm to 6 am.
    I was disappointed to see no reference to the Eyre report in the consultation document. I regard the Eyre report as the most thorough review of airport policy for many years. It was produced by an inspector who was very alive indeed to the needs of the air transport industry. I want to remind the House of what that inspector said:
    "Although aircraft are becoming less noisy I doubt whether they will ever be so quiet as not to disturb the sleep

    963
    of those living near airports. I regard it as unacceptable in a caring society that even one or two aircraft should be permitted to disturb sleep at night."
    The inspector went on to recommend that there should be a complete ban on night flights at Gatwick and Heathrow.
    I believe that the Government have listened to some degree to the reasoning of the Eyre report, but it is regrettable that no specific reference has been made to the reasoning or recommendations that it contains. It is unsatisfactory that no clear explanation is given in the consultation document as to why it is necessary to have the comparatively small number of an average of 15 flights a night. Each one of those flights is capable of disturbing the sleep of a significant number of people. We understand that emergency flights are necessary and even the Eyre report made it clear that emergency flights were to be excluded from the recommended ban.
    However, I fail to see any clear justification in the consultation document for the number of night flights that are still being allowed under the quota. The explanation given about freight flights is wholly unconvincing. It is very good that those noisy flights are to be excluded between 12.30 am and 5 am. However, there is no clear justification why freight flights are necessary at night. The paragraph in the consultation document that deals with night flights is extremely vague. The reasons for not allowing a complete night ban state:
    "To do so would deny airlines the ability to plan some scheduled flights in the night period, and to cope with disruptions and delays; and damage the airport's status as a 24-hour international airport (with implications for safety and maintenance and the needs of passengers) and its competitive position in relation to a number of European airports."
    The air transport industry is of the greatest importance to my constituents and to the constituents of many hon. Members. I would be concerned if any measure damaged the ability of the airport to compete. However, I see no clear sign in the consultation document that a night ban would cause serious problems to the running of the airport.
    When the balance is struck between the needs of the air transport industry and the people living around the airport. I hope that the Government will continue to bear in mind the reasoning in the Eyre report. People who live around airports have the same need of a night's sleep as people living elsewhere. Those who work at airports, their families and those who live near airports should be able to sleep without being disturbed by aircraft. The number of flights, whether 6,800 under existing quota or 5,750 in the Government's proposals, are insignificant in relation to the total capacity of the airport. Even if the total quota was doubled, that would only increase the airport capacity by 2 per cent. and that has been rightly rejected as a means of increasing airport capacity. People do not want to fly at night judging from the experience of the quota. People have not shown a great desire to fly at night. Judging from the experience of the existing quota, airlines are by no means keen to fly at night and there appears to be very little enthusiasm on the airlines' part for using up the quota.
    I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will look much more closely at the precise needs of the air transport industry with regard to night flights and look beyond the question of emergencies to define precisely the needs of the industry for flights within the quota. I hope also that he will consider whether
    964
    the needs of the air transport industry for such flights justify waking up so many people for the sake of so few flights. I hope that he will consider how so many major foreign airports manage to survive and prosper with complete bans on night movements and in many cases with the airports shut down completely for a period. I hope that he will consider whether airport policy should he much more firmly and positively directed towards the achievement of a total night ban as has been recommended by the inspector in the Eyre report.
    I hope that the reasoning implicit in the consultation document which appears to point towards the logic of a complete night ban will be increasingly spelt out so that it becomes a positive, express aim of Government policy without damage to the air transport industry to achieve a total ban on night movements at Heathrow and other major airports, so that people living around the airports —and that includes those who work at the airports will have the same opportunity of a night's sleep as people living elsewhere.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Secretary of State was bullish in his defence of the Government's investment programme for transport infrastructure. However impressive his performance was, it did not make up for the clear lack of an overall transport planning strategy.
    We in Wales have suffered from a massive lack of investment in our road, rail, air and sea links. It is little wonder that we lose out so often in attracting inward investment when our transport communications are chronically and woefully inadequate. The Welsh and Scottish economies are not considered as entities in their own right, but unless we begin to look at them in that way we shall always lack the necessary investment to regenerate our economies.
    My party welcomes the improvements to the A55 along the north Wales coast, but that creates its own problems because once the bottlenecks at Conwy and Penmaenmawr are resolved the bottleneck will shift further west to my constituency at Llanfairpwll and Gaerwen. Once one problem is settled another is created.
    I could take hon. Members on a picturesque tour of my constituency. Many hon. Members have told me how they have spent a lot of time enjoying the scenery of the island. However, transport facilities on the island are extremely poor because, although there has been a steady and sustained growth in commercial traffic using the A5— particularly the Sealink ferries at Holyhead and the B and I ferries—there has been no investment to improve the infrastructure of our roads to ensure that we have good transport facilities and can solve some of the environmental and social problems that are created by increased commercial traffic.
    We welcome the increased use of the resources at the port of Holyhead. However, unless we improve road facilities through the island the quality of life for those who live in the villages along the A5 will rapidly deteriorate.
    We do not only envisage a growth in commercial traffic using the Sealink ferries. It is worth noting that the present throughput at Holyhead is about 1·6 million passengers a year, 36 per cent. of whom travel by car or commercial vehicle. Overnight from 1 January 1988 there will be a 30 per cent. increase in commercial traffic and a 30 per cent. increase in cars using that port. The B and I Ferries'

    965
    operation that is currently situated in Liverpool will be transferred to Holyhead. Thus, not only will we face further increases in commercial traffic but in tourist traffic. With regard to the drive to attract new industry, it is a matter of urgent priority that the Government improve the A5 through Anglesey.
    The Welsh Office has said that it is about to receive the consultant's report on the feasibility study on the A5. Will the Minister say whether that report has been received, when he will make an announcement to the House and whether the Government are committed to improving the A5? I am concerned not only with my constituency but with the lack of an alternative for traffic coming from Ireland to London and mainland Europe.
    I am sure that the increased growth in commercial traffic through Holyhead will place a strain on the A55 when it is completed. Would it not make sense to have a new purpose-built A55 along the island through the constituencies of Caernarfon and Meirionnydd Nant Conwy as an alternative route to reach the motorway network in the midlands? In that regard the Government should consider making a joint approach with the Irish Government to the EEC for finance. I am sure that it would be successful.
    As there will be an increase in commercial and tourist traffic into north Wales and my constituency, we should have an efficient modern railway link. The safety record of people travelling by train is much better than that for roads. Since 1980 there have been fewer than 50 deaths in railway accidents, compared with 40,000 deaths on our roads. That safety record should be commended. While we should improve road safety, we should also increase the use of the rail service.
    As to the economic development of north Wales—I made this point in a question to the Secretary of State for Wales recently — the electrification of the north and south Wales line must be a priority. The Minister intervened when a similar comment was made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). He said that we should accept Sprinter trains as an alternative to electrification. The Minister must be made aware of the fact that once the Channel tunnel is open, if it becomes operational, one will be able to travel from Dublin on an electrified line, except on the north Wales link. If we want a modern, efficient rail transport network into the next century we must consider the whole package and not bits of it. I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to use their influence with British Rail to ensure that the north and south Wales lines are electrified as a matter of priority.
    A modern, efficient integrated transport network is essential for the economic growth of Wales. I accept that the Channel tunnel will supply opportunities for us in that regard. However, I should like to ensure that we in Wales do not lose because of a lack of political will in Westminster to ensure that we receive a fair share of the cake. I foresee an important role for the port of Holyhead in that development. It is the gateway not only to but from Ireland. Some 80 per cent. of the people who travel to Ireland use the port of Holyhead. I should like to see that town, which has been ravaged by unemployment for so many years, given an opportunity to show what it can do. We must ensure that it is given an opportunity that is equal to any other part of the United Kingdom.
    966
    If we are to have sustained economic growth an integrated transport network is essential. I ask the Government to ensure that the investment that they have blandly said is available in so many other parts of the country is also made available in Wales and Scotland.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. Anthony Steen: May I say how much I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) make his spontaneous speech about a special part of the country. I had the good fortune to have a house not far from his constituency and I used to visit that wonderful part of the country. I am sure that the Government will take to heart many of the things that he has said, especially about the rail links.
    I also want to start with a constituency interest, the west country. The west country—rather like north Wales— tends to be thought of as an inaccessible and difficult place to get to. I must say that when I became the Member for South Hams I felt that it was a long way away and difficult to reach. However, in the four years that I have represented that constituency BR has done a remarkable job. The rail services take a lot of beating. One can get to Plymouth in under three hours by train and to Exeter in under two hours. Totnes, my constituency station, runs a fast and efficient service. If one wishes to travel to Totnes, one can buy a ticket at Paddington straight to Buckfastleigh. From there one can jump on the steam train and chug along up the River Dart in an old-fashioned steam locomotive. It is extremely popular. I pay tribute to the unions in helping BR to bring those steam trains straight to the British Rail platform at Totnes. That is a great achievement.
    We also have an extremely good airport. My constituency just skirts round one of the runways at Plymouth airport and we have a first-rate service to Heathrow — five flights a day on Brymon. With the opening of the STOLport on 5 November by Her Majesty the Queen, it is possible to fly from Plymouth to the STOLport within an hour and then out to the continent. I pay tribute to the wonderful work done by Brymon.
    The only trouble with Plymouth airport is that it is 1,000 ft up on the edge of Dartmoor. That means that one tends to be diverted to Cornwall when one flies to Plymouth because of the mists. However, that is being put right with new radar equipment and it will be possible to fly far more conveniently to Plymouth and not find oneself in Cornwall.
    We have excellent plane and rail services, but I cannot say the same for the road services. It has taken me seven or eight hours to drive up from my constituency to the House because of endless roadworks and cones. I do not know how the Minister organises it, but it seems to me that there are always some roadworks going on, so it is never possible to have a clean run. At the moment there are three major roadworks on the M4. We are deceived, having passed the first one into thinking that there will not be any more. However, having passed the second, we meet the third set of roadworks. It would be good if the Secretary of State could ensure that, when there are roadworks, people are warned well in advance that there are three obstacles. As a result of that knowledge people might make a diversion, and that could save a lot of problems and traffic difficulties.

    967
    I believe that the Brymon operations out of Plymouth are a success because they go into the STOLport, one of the most imaginative air traffic developments that has ever been seen.
    I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his most exciting and stimulating speech. Although not all hon. Members would agree, I am sure that they appreciate that he gave us a tremendous race around the country and a lovely picture of developments and improvements. I am sure that most of us recognise that such improvements are the result of the Government's approach to transport needs for the 1990s. My right hon. Friend's speech was a tour de force, and I am sure that the House appreciated it.
    I have mentioned Brymon and the STOLport. One of the attractions of the STOLport is that Brymon does not have a monopoly, because it faces competition from Eurocity Express. I do not believe that Brymon has come clean regarding the amount of interest that British Airways has in its future. Although British Airways states that it has only 40 per cent. voting rights, it has a 95 per cent. interest in Brymon. In fact, 1,250,000 preference shares have gone to British Airways, and Air France has linked up. I am advised that when Eurocity Express made its application, great fury emanated from Brymon and British Airways because they wanted a monopoly out of the STOLport. They were disturbed that Eurocity Express would compete with its short take off and landing planes, try to put Brymon to the test and not allow it to have a monopoly. However, British Airways has been extremely skilful.
    I should like to talk about the success of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and what is at risk. At this point I should declare an interest. I have an interest in British Midland Airways, which does a fine job. I am not ashamed to say that I believe that it is one of the best independent airlines in the country. I also have an interest in British Island Airways, the charter airline that operates out of Gatwick. That airline does a remarkable job. In fact, it is fair to say that I am interested in the other airlines as well. I help all the independent airlines as much as I can, be they Brymon, Monarch or Britannia. I believe they do a tremendous job in bringing competition to our airline policies. I am a firm supporter of competition, private enterprise and independent airlines, whether retained by them or not.
    If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report goes ahead, one airline will have approximately 93 per cent. of the routes out of the country. I do not believe there is much point in the Civil Aviation Authority stating that there should be a review of licensing when 93 per cent. of those licences will be with one airline. It is an empty suggestion. I believe that the Government cannot have a credible aviation policy if 93 per cent. of routes are with one airline. The Government have lost credibility with regard to competition and their belief in helping the consumer. The Government have also lost credibility with the independent airlines. I do not believe it is the Government's fault.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It is the airlines' fault.
    Mr. Steen: I shall explain whose fault it is.
    Once the MMC recommends that the merger should go ahead I believe that the Secretary of State has no choice.
    968
    He must accept its recommendation by law, provided that the MMC does not say it is against the public interest. That is the first problem faced by the Government.
    Secondly, I believe the Government may have made a mistake — of course, before the present Secretary of State had responsibility—in not putting into practice Civil Aviation Paper 500. I believe that the Opposition recognise what an important breakthrough there would have been for the regional airports, for British Caledonian and for British Airways if CAP 500 had been put into effect.
    The Government got it wrong. They carved up the routes and gave British Caledonian what turned out to be bad routes and gave the good routes to British Airways. The result is that British Caledonian is now to be taken over by British Airways. The die was cast once the Government failed to implement CAP 500. There is no point in having a Civil Aviation Authority if one does not follow its recommendations.
    When things went wrong, the British Airways offer was made. I am advised that the MMC said to British Airways that it did not think much of the merger proposal and asked it to come up with some conditions so that the MC could tell the country that competition would still exist.
    British Airways put forward proposals. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission did a good job on the report, but its members are not experts on aviation. When the Commission got the list of conditions that British Airways suggested, it thanked the company and said that it would accept them. The Secretary of State could not then turn down those conditions and impose new ones. We all have a high regard for Lord King, British Airways' footwork was very neat indeed, and the Secretary of State was caught out.
    The merger was announced on 11 November. On 10 November British Airways issued a press release about the merger and what it was going to do. I have a copy of that release here. How did British Airways know what was in the report the day before it was announced? The Secretary of State did not know ; nor did the House; but British Airways issued this statement. It was not released until 11 November, but it was dated 10 November. I took the matter up with the Library, which checked with British Airways, which said that the problem was due to a typing error.
    Mr. Morgan: The most likely explanation for that is that, as the House decided to run Tuesday into Wednesday, British Airways did the reverse and ran Wednesday into Tuesday.
    Mr. Steen: That is a bit of "Alice in Wonderland" on the part of British Airways. The matter calls for an explanation. I cannot believe that the major PR company that represents British Airways, which always behaves in the most impeccable, responsible way, could produce a press release dated on the wrong day and then claim that it was due to a typing error.
    Did British Airways have inside information'? Once it had put its conditions forward, and the M MC had accepted them, the die was cast. The merger had to go ahead, and the Secretary of State had to approve it. I think that Lord King has bounced the House, the independent airlines, the Government, and the Civil Aviation Authority, too, into the merger.
    The report said that 5,000 slots would be given up. However, there are no more than the four domestic routes

    969
    out of Gatwick to four destinations in this country, so nothing is being given up. If British Airways chooses to apply for the licence, it will get some of its slots back. When the report says that up to 20,000 slots could be given up, it refers to the Paris, Brussels and Nice routes. If those routes go to other airlines, British Airways will give out British Caledonian slots on those routes, so there will be no room for greater competition. The odd thing is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission acknowledges that charter airlines have provided competition and brought down fares. But what will happen at Gatwick when the merger goes ahead? Before answering that, I shall digress a moment to describe what is happening at Heathrow.
    British Airways is putting larger and larger planes on European routes on which there is a cartel. Seats that it does not sell as scheduled seats are being sold through the back door to bucket shops where one can pay one half or one quarter of the price. That means that the large wide-bodied jets that are not needed on some of the European routes are being put on those routes so that British Airways can break into the charter market. Charter airlines are not allowed at Heathrow, but British Airways is taking charter passengers out of Heathrow by putting them on the back of scheduled aircraft.
    At Gatwick, it is the other way round: one is not allowed to put scheduled passengers on charter airlines. If there are 20 seats in an empty charter aircraft, one cannot put scheduled passengers on them, even though they are going to the same destination.
    If the merger goes ahead, British Airways will put wide-bodied planes on scheduled services out of Gatwick to destinations that are presently British Caledonian services, and thus start eating into the charter market by putting charter passengers on the backs of the wide-bodied planes out of Gatwick. That is what the charter airlines—not only British Island Airways, but Monarch, Orion, Britannia and Dan Air—fear most. Those airlines have done a tremendous service to this country, serving consumer interests and prices by providing competition. My concern is that British Airways will do the same thing out of Gatwick as it is now doing out of Heathrow.
    A few weekends ago I had the experience of flying to Frankfurt by British Airways. I said that I wanted the excursion fare. British Airways was sorry, but there were only a few excursion fares to Frankfurt and, when full, one had to travel club class. On the plane I discovered that three quarters of the seats were club and fairly deserted, and, right at the back, all those poor people on excursion were squashed in. British Airways is squeezing out excursion fares, so that there are fewer and fewer rows available, and insisting that one flies club class, which costs more. That is another anti-competition, restrictive practice.
    The MMC report says that British Airways would welcome competition out of Heathrow, and that British Airways would not object to licences ; and Lord King welcomes competition. But he knows that he will not get any. How can there be parity out of Heathrow to the European capitals when a cartel of British Airways and Lufthansa pulls in the profits? British Airways and Air France pull in the profits, too. No one else can fly on those routes because the Government, despite valiant efforts, are
    970
    unable to get foreign Governments to agree that independent airlines can compete with British Airways and Lufthansa.
    Let us examine what competition does. Flying from Glasgow to Heathrow on a British Midland diamond service covers 340 miles and works out at 21·17p a mile. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has used that splendid service. From Heathrow to Paris, which is 216 miles, the economy fare is 39·35p and the club fare 48·61p a mile. So flying from Glasgow to Heathrow on British Midland costs less than half the economy fare on British Airways from Heathrow to Paris per passenger mile. That is the effect of the cartel. Until that is broken, there is no way in which the Government can ensure that independent carriers provide consumer benefits.
    If the merger goes ahead, the Government should suggest to British Airways that it should give up half of its flights a day to, say, Paris and Brussels, and that idependent carriers should compete with British Airways on these routes. That is the only way in which competition can take place. If British Airways and British Caledonian combine to hold 93 per cent. of routes, there can be no competition.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not Air Europe already have a licence to fly on the London to Paris route that is being blocked because of British Caledonian's objections? If those objections are withdrawn, why is it necessary to cut anyone's routes, provided that Air Europe receives the capacity and slots to fly in competition?
    Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman is right. If Air Europe flies out of Gatwick there will be competition. However, I am talking about Heathrow, which has the cartel and restricted space. I suspect that British Airways will move more and more British Caledonian flights out of Gatwick into Heathrow and leave fewer and fewer peak time slots for independent airlines. It is one thing to say that British Midland can fly from Heathrow to Paris, but it must fly the same number of flights out of Heathrow to Paris in order to compete. If not, there is no competition and there will not be enough slots. That is the problem. British Airways has it all ways. It can put charter seats on the back of scheduled flights ; it can take up all the slots in peak time; and with the cartel, it can prevent anyone from competing on the principal revenue routes in Europe.
    Why, in April last year, did British Airways increase its fares to most European capitals by 3 per cent., and again in November by 5 per cent.? In Amsterdam there is independent competition and in Gibraltar there is competition from Air Europe. Those are the only two routes on which there has not been a price increase by British Airways. That is the effect of competition. I am sure that the Secretary of State must appreciate the fear not just of the airlines with which I am closely involved, but of all the independent airlines.
    We have seen an enormous growth in air traffic and the great success of our aviation industry. Those things are at risk, and we are on the horns of a dilemma. If the merger goes ahead without the Secretary of State doing something in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority, consumer protection and competition will go out of the window. There is a sense of injustice and the feeling that the independent airlines cannot compete and cannot get the slots. They cannot raise the capital and operate at the

    971
    same frequencies. The CAP 500 saw the beginning of a monopoly creeping into aviation. I fear that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report merely completes that work.
    Several lion. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I repeat Mr. Speaker's appeal for brevity. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.20. Therefore, there is a little over two hours left and many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I should like to speak about the effect that the Government's transport policies have had, especially in my constituency. I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members some of the comments made by the Minister of State about how the Government's policies have improved the quality of service for our people and to demonstrate that in my constituency that claim is very hollow. Far from improving, the quality of public transport has dramatically declined and a shadow of uncertainty has been cast over the bus services. Government policies have also undermined other services, especially the taxi service.
    I want to declare an interest in public transport. For some years I was chairman of one of our biggest municipal transport operators, and I was an executive member of the Federation of Public Passenger Transport Employers. I watched the deregulation Bill taking shape line by line and clause by clause. I remind the House that the background to that Bill came not from the Government but from the Adam Smith Institute, an organisation of Right-wing extremists who were laughed at years ago by most intelligent people. Its proposals were not taken seriously by anybody in the transport industry, but it appears that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) believed that it had the key to what he thought was the way forward in public transport. That is a joke.
    In my area there are four main operators. They are Kingston-upon-Hull City Transport, East Yorkshire, Grimsby-Cleethorpes Transport and, in my constituency, the Lincolnshire Road Car Company. Since deregulation the Lincolnshire Road Car Company has cut its route mileage by nearly a half. The Secretary of State said that route mileage in Britain had increased, but that is a false claim because he is talking about areas in which there may be more than one operator running on the same route at the same time. Certainly that increases route mileage, but it does not improve the quality of the service.
    No significant new operators have come in since deregulation. The new services that have been brought in have simply been introduced by existing operators running on works contracts, works journeys, and they provide the service at a peak time when there is already an adequate service. On the evening, Sunday and early morning works journeys that have been lost, no new operator has come in to fill the gap left by the Lincolnshire Road Car Company. The operations that have been introduced are funded by the county council and the district councils.
    The end of cross-subsidy in the town of Scunthorpe has meant route reorganisations. Not only has that ended many services at 6 o'clock, thereby stranding many people, but it has recently stranded elderly people who want to go
    972
    to their doctors' surgeries. They have lost their routes, especially the town circular service, and people who want to go to draw their pensions can no longer catch a bus on that route. Some of those people are at the bottom of a large hill and the walk is beyond the frail and elderly. The Government's proposals have made those people prisoners in their own homes, simply because the company can no longer operate uncommercial services that are cross-subsidised from the profitable ones.
    A study was Commissioned by Glanford borough council to look into the leisure provision in its area. One thing that came out very strongly in the consultants' study was that the lack of public transport and the expense meant that many young people from the rural areas were not able to come in to use the leisure facilities in the urban centres. That is a quite dramatic effect.
    Some companies in my constituency have complained bitterly that early morning works journeys are causing enormous problems to their staff in getting to work for the early morning shifts. The people who are affected are the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. They are the elderly, women at home, young mothers with children and young people—all of whom rely on public transport. They may not be among the two thirds of people who are car owners that the Secretary of State talked about. However, they have rights, and at the moment their rights and needs are not being recognised by the Government.
    At the Scunthorpe depot, 50 per cent. of the local bus company employees have lost their jobs. As part of their struggle to survive, many of the staff have accepted wage cuts of between £20 and £30 a week in order to stay on with the company. There are no longer any premium payments and there is no shift pay. The people who work for the Lincolnshire Road Car Company are simply paid on a flat rate. The Government's so-called improvement is not only at the expense of consumers, because the Government are taking money from the people who work in the industry — the staff who are losing wages as a result of Government policies.
    The effect locally has not just been limited to the bus service, although that has been bad enough. It has also affected taxis. As a result of deregulation more taxi plates can be given out. Many taxi operators buy their original plates, sometimes for as much as £1,000 per plate. I realise that that was not the intention of the law as it stood, but it is a long-standing tradition in the industry. The people who buy their plates sell them when they retire. Therefore, the price that they pay for their plates is recovered and that is an accepted part of their retirement benefit.
    When deregulation came in, plates were increased in the town by nearly 50 per cent. A further batch of plates will now be given out because of a ruling by Reading council that it cannot pick and choose who gets the plates; the plates must be given out in a batch. That is assuming that there is sufficient demand. That will completely undermine the viability of some of the town's taxi owners. I would not want to see anybody who wants to get a taxi job being in any way restricted, but it is not doing people any favours to allow them to enter an industry in which there is over-demand and over-capacity, because they will be doomed to work long hours for low pay in order to make a living. It is in no way desirable that there should be so many taxis that many of them are restricted to circling the town, going round and round waiting for an empty taxi rank. That is not a step forward.

    973
    The county and district councils are all that are holding together the public transport system in the area. They are doing that by the use of their concessionary fare scheme that was introduced by a Labour-controlled county council and also by being sympathetic and using subsidies where they are needed. There is a strong case for subsidies for public transport. Not only does public transport supply the needs of the weakest members in our society, but is a sensible use of resources.
    I draw the attention of the House to a study carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. It developed a computer model of a cost-benefit analysis in order to investigate the value of putting money into public transport subsidies compared with the cost of roads, accidents, pollution and providing service car parks in congested areas. That study showed that the former GLC's fares fair policy was the correct way to induce people to leave their cars at home and use public transport. The south Yorkshire policy of low fares was justified and correct, and the west Yorkshire policy was moving in the right direction, but it had not cut the fares enough. That was an independent study by a Government Department.
    That study was suppressed. It was never made widely available. It demonstrates that what the Labour party is arguing for is correct in principle and in terms of scientific fact.
    In regard to roads, I shall also briefly mention the Humber bridge, which has caused some concern. Glanford borough council had the foresight to be involved in setting up the Humber bridge and it has an interest in it. As the Secretary of State is probably aware, the debts on the Humber bridge are so crippling that the interest is not covered by the income from it. For many years I was a commuter across the Humber bridge. I mentioned to the chairman of the Humber bridge board, Councillor Alex Clarke, that in all the years that I commuted across the Humber bridge I must have paid off a substantial chunk of it. He told me that, because of the rate of interest, all those hundreds of pounds I had spent on tolls had just about paid for one rivet in the bridge, let alone a substantial part of it. It is important that the bridge is recognised as part of the infrastructure and the economy of the whole region. It therefore deserves support by having its debts wiped off and all crossing tolls abolished. It does not make sense, when one goes through the Dartford tunnel, to be held up by long queues in both directions. What does that cost the economy in terms of the people who are held up when they should be on their way?
    Public transport is so important that it cannot be left to the free economy to decide its direction. That is not done in any other European country. I am amazed that the Government find it amusing that the Labour party is arguing for an integrated transport policy. Is there something amusing about having trains timed to meet buses, and buses operating in areas of need, and taxis operating where buses do not operate? Is there something amusing or illogical about that? I do not think so. We need a policy which meets people's needs, is given the necessary resources and is subject to democratic local accountability. I find nothing amusing about that.
    In my constituency people are stranded in their own homes. Young people cannot afford to go out and use the leisure services provided by the public authorities. We
    974
    have a limited bus service which means that young women have to walk home late at night because there is no service for them. Young people are isolated in their villages because there is no service. The free market has failed those young people. The only thing that can provide a proper and coherent service is an integrated transport policy and commitment and support of a kind that is not given by the Government.
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Conal Gregory: I am delighted that the House is devoting a major part of its time today to transport policy. The Conservative party has a proud record of supporting the user of transport, whether it be bus or coach, train, boat, car or plane. It contrasts with the Labour Government's shameful record, during the period which so many people cannot remember, when they were in office in the 1970s. Since then, Labour authorities have continued to put the operator before the user. Why should the state know best when ever increasing subsidies are thrown away regardless of need? The Labour party's proposed national transport authority would be a bureaucratic dinosaur. Traffic would come under the stranglehold of politically motivated local authorities.
    I should like to discuss bus and rail traffic. Just over a year ago bus travellers outside London found themselves at the centre of a revolution in public transport. For the first time in half a century the bus industry was opened up to anyone who wished to run a service, provided he could comply with the safety regulations. The Opposition bitterly opposed the deregulation of long-distance coaches and local bus services. Labour prefers municipalisation and state stranglehold to service as the watchdog for the bus and coach user. Labour has defined its policy in the document "Failed Directions" but mistitled "Fresh Directions". It said it would repeal the Transport Act 1985 and thereby reverse all the benefits passed on to bus travellers.
    Let us remember the situation prior to the passing of the Transport Act. Rising costs—which the Opposition would rather forget—stagnant passenger numbers and increasing subsidies were the order of the day. Since then bus mileage has risen by almost 12 per cent. and by 17 per cent. in the shire counties. That gives the lie to the Socialists who said that services would be cut. We have seen over 440 new operators entering the bus market, contrary to the words of the Opposition during the passage of the legislation. At the same time local authorities have made substantial savings, benefiting ratepayers by £40 million per annum.
    In the York area we have seen new routes, new vehicles with a fleet of hoppers, a new courtesy on the part of drivers and new operators. The West Yorkshire Road Car Company, denationalised, has set its aim as providing a better service with a more local image. Almost 40 million passenger miles have been achieved with its 470 vehicles. I welcome the new management and wish it well in serving the York community.
    I have spent a most useful couple of years fulfilling an industry and parliamentary trust fellowship with British Rail as my chosen company. It has allowed me to see all aspects of its work and I have grown to have a high regard for its senior management. Of course, as the Member for York I am also closely in contact with this major employer in my constituency. I have been pleased to see the

    975
    Government's consistent support by approving invest-ment projects in British Rail worth over £1·3 billion since 1983. Tory support for British Rail gives the lie to Labour's claims.
    Let me remind the House of the words of Labour's transport spokesman, the former right hon. Member for Barrow, Mr. Albert Booth, at the time of the 1983 election:
    "Make no mistake: if Mrs. Thatcher is re-elected it will be the end of the line for British Rail. The Conservative manifesto gives the green light to the biggest series of closures since Beeching."
    How wrong he was. A massive investment programme without any major route closures and with over 50 rail stations opened or re-opened since 1983 has been the reality. No wonder Labour was rejected. The transport policy of the Conservative party was another reason for its third successive term in office.
    If new rolling stock is to replace old equipment, inevitably there will be a shift from regular maintenance, just as we run our motor cars for longer periods between major services.
    Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member has just said that 50 new stations have been opened by British Rail. He also said that Labour's policy would have been disastrous because it would have resulted in a municipal stranglehold. Is he aware that the normal process by which new stations are opened for use by British Rail is by investment by those very municipal authorities whose efforts he is denigrating? They pay for them.
    Mr. Gregory: I should like to go down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will not. I hope that the hon. Member will catch your eye later. What he has said shows severe lack of knowledge on the Opposition's part about purchasing policy. Investment in stations is undertaken substantially by British Rail, with the approval of those stations by the appropriate Minister, be it the Secretary of State in Scotland or the Minister south of the border.
    To deny the point that I was making about investment in new rolling stock would be ostrichlike and sticking one's head in the sand. Those who want an efficient modern railway system are pleased about the investment in new construction. In this connection I have been pleased to see faster and more efficient passenger rail traffic, particularly on inter-city, for example, with the electrification of the north-east main line, and modern ways to attract freight from the roads. On conservation grounds, it makes sense to move more heavy traffic by rail. Too much is causing devastation to our historic centres, including my own constituency of York.
    I have referred to new rolling stock. I would like to commend the speed and decisiveness with which my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for railways has approved applications by British Rail. The Opposition have never been able to give an example—and I hope they never will — of tardiness by my hon. Friend. For too long British Rail Engineering Ltd. has taken orders from British Rail without using fully its engineering expertise. Now British Rail Engineering Ltd. is winning orders openly against competition.
    I know the pride with which the BREL work force in York tackles its work. It has an order book worth £140 million, which includes class 321 and 319 electrical multiple units for Network SouthEast. I am delighted, therefore, to hear today of the announcement of the Super Sprinters, worth £69 million.
    976
    There is a serious misunderstanding by the Socialists on York city council about British Rail's purchasing procedure. Quite rightly, British Rail makes application for the approval of funds which are evaluated by the Department of Transport. It would not be right for my hon. Friend the Minister to dictate specifically where those funds should be applied. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity for BREL to compete and to win an order book against strong competition—
    Mr. David Clelland: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House by how much BREL's operations in the city of York have been run down over the last couple of years?
    Mr. Gregory: I would expect the Opposition to be better briefed on such a factual point. I commend to the hon. Gentleman that he should do that. The Opposition have been slumbering for some time. The hon. Gentleman has not taken note of the fact that we are moving from heavy maintenance to less regular maintenance so that the skills inherent in York, which I recognise but which the Opposition do not, can be put into new build in the United Kingdom and for export. It would be a marvellous fillip to the city of York and to British Rail Engineering Ltd. in particular if it were to win the order for Super Sprinters to which my right hon. Friend has referred. However, the export potential and the ability of a major engineering company to win non-rail orders should not be underestimated.
    British Rail has some catching up to do in passenger services. Too many trains are still not providing catering facilities. Why cannot British Rail extend to all passenger trains a trolley service, such as the excellent one which operates on the trains from Victoria to Gatwick? Why does not British Rail provide on trains newspapers, periodicals and train-related memorabilia? That would certainly meet passenger demands. Great strides are being taken in on-station catering, but still not with the imagination that I have seen on Dutch railways, for example, where Utrecht has a thriving range of shops, restaurants and other support services around its rail station. A few stations here, particularly Victoria and Waterloo, are moving in that direction but development is slow, particularly at provincial stations.
    Mr. Steen: On the catering point, does my hon. Friend agree that there has been some improvement on British Rail? It has got rid of its foreign sparkling waters and it now stocks English waters. Does he agree that British Rail should extend its catering to include English wine. not just foreign varieties?
    Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. The tourism aspects of British Rail would thereby be enhanced. Clearly there is demand not only for those but for the reintroduction of Rowntree Mackintosh's excellent confectionery, Kit Kat, which has recently been removed from inter-city services.
    If subsidiaries of British Rail are to be denationalised, will the consumer be placed first? That cannot be so if one considers, for example, the lacklustre material of British Transport Advertising Ltd. It is incredible that one can travel on an inter-city train and see no form of advertising — unless, perchance, one picks up the magazine—and that there are no opportunities to advertise in connection with the ticket. Support services are meant to support British Rail users.

    977
    When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds discussions later this year with British Rail about its plans to denationalise non-key activities, will he give an assurance that any changes will benefit the user and widen choice? That will ensure that the Conservative party is the true friend of the traveller and that we put the user, not the operator, first. I urge the House to support the amendment.
    7.35 pm
    Mr. David Clelland: No parliamentary debate about transport would be complete without representation from Tyne and Wear, which has a transport system rivalling even that of the Docklands light railway. Tyne and Wear has one of the most advanced passenger transport systems in the world, incorporating a metro light railway system and full integration with accompanying bus services.
    I shall explain to the House how the system has been affected by the Government's deregulation policies. The system was devised, provided and run by local government and has now been undermined by national Government policies. Twelve months after deregulation, it is possible to look around Tyne and Wear and conclude, superficially, that nothing in public transport has changed. If I count the number of buses in the centre of Newcastle on any weekday, I can almost trick myself into thinking that things have improved. The metro is still running and still appears to be integrated with the buses. The British Rail Sunderland line still operates when the new Pacer trains are working correctly. We still have Traveltickets and single journey through ticketing. Passengers have all the travel information that they require. Bus stops are well signed and bus stations are being brought under control. A dial a ride scheme is being introduced into Sunderland and south Tyneside.
    Public agencies, the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive have done an excellent and professional job in protecting the interests of the passenger during the transition to deregulation. The Government have been well served and assisted in achieving the present position by the PTA and the PTE, neither of which actively supported or promoted deregulation. On the contrary, they sought the specific exemption of Tyne and Wear from the Transport Act 1985, only to be thwarted by the full weight of the Government on the basis of some very lightweight arguments—light in substance, but heavy in dogma.
    Counting buses in Newcastle can be a superficial exercise. One must go further to establish a true picture and to get some idea of what has really happened and what is really emerging. Let us start with money, always an important consideration in these matters. The expenditure limit in Tyne and Wear for 1986–87 was about £64 million and the Secretary of State has mentioned a figure of £53·5 million for 1988–89. That is a cash reduction of some 11 per cent., but, in real terms, it is a massive cut of 25 per cent. Last year, the Secretary of State said that the funds available would be sufficient for existing concessionary travel schemes to continue, yet he proposes a 25 per cent. cut. I must support the PTA, not as a matter of dogma, but as a matter of fairness and social justice, in its bid to
    978
    make the Secretary of State increase expenditure to a more realistic level in view of all that has been achieved in Tyne and Wear.
    In order to meet the Government's new financial regime of lower expenditure levels each year for public transport, and to achieve the transition to deregulation in Tyne and Wear, nearly £20 million has been paid out for redundancies and nearly 1,500 people have been thrown out of work, and that is in the worst jobs black spot in the country.
    Against that background of financial cuts by the Government we have been promised lower fares and improved services, so we have minibuses. Well, for the present we have minibuses — the cure for all public transport ills, innovation in motion, initiatives on wheels. Well, we shall see in a couple of years.
    What else do we have? I know what we had. We had a comprehensive through-ticketing system known as Transfare, which now operates at only 14 of the 44 metro stations. Bus-to-bus Transfare no longer exists at all. As a result, many passengers have suffered a hidden fares increase and families with children going to school suffered a fares increase of 100 per cent. or 200 per cent. on deregulation day.
    The countrywide ticketing scheme was a boon for the area. Now operators are messing passengers about, accepting some tickets and not others, playing around with the passengers' interests and welfare. Multi-journey tickets were just dismissed by the bus operators. Integration is now breaking up as bus routes are diverted past metro interchanges which were designed to take buses. Passengers are denied access to the system or are penalised through their pockets by the bus operators who have opted out of the long-established and much praised ticketing arrangements. Pensioners are also being forced to join in and are diverted away from the metro system.
    Where is the value for money or passenger choice? We face the prospect of a £300 million investment being under-used because of Government policy and the commercial rulings of bus operators. Public waste and inefficiency are the direct result of Government interference in our local affairs. That Government promised improved services, but what has happened? Where are the benefits to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) refers?
    We now have old 1971, 1972 and 1973 single deckers back in the area, newly painted but belching smoke all over the place. Services run from 8 am to 6 pm — exactly what was predicted. They run on the best used routes, but not at lower fares, sapping the resources of the opposition so that soon there will no commercial services after 6 pm or on Sundays. It is not the Government, but the fare-paying passengers who pay for that wasteful and needless competition, either through higher fares, or by having reduced services or no services at all.
    The future is now becoming clear; all that was prophesised for the Transport Act 1985 will become fact. We already have bunching of buses in the centre of Newcastle and Sunderland, buses chasing one another in and out of bus stops and bus stations, and all those other lovely practices which are part of free competition. There is little doubt that fares will continue to increase at a higher rate than inflation. Single fares increased by nearly 10 per cent. last April and Travelticket prices have nearly doubled since last October.
    Operators are now talking about deregistering evening and Sunday services, thinning out their frequencies, and

    979
    the talk of redundancies is once again in the air in Newcastle. Bus staff have made major sacrifices by working longer hours and taking reduced pay. Yet nothing more than higher fares and severely reduced services will be achieved, and even those will have to be provided by the PTA and the PTE through the tendering process.
    The Government's financial policies will aggravate the matter and create an inevitable conflict between the concessionary travel scheme and bus services for the public. In another 12 months, all that will have arrived. The signs are there for all to see — the results of deregulation and dangerous dogma.
    The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to British Rail's proposal to withdraw the sleeper service on the east coast line. There have been numerous objections to that proposal from business men and others —not least from Members of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor did not wish to mislead the House into thinking that only the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was worried about this matter. The northern group of Labour Members of Parliament has been most industrious in trying to get British Rail to change its mind on that. Unfortunately, their efforts have had little effect.
    The alternative that has been offered by British Rail is to travel overnight from Euston to Edinburgh via Glasgow on the west coast line and then to travel from Edinburgh to Newcastle the following morning. That is completely unacceptable. The withdrawal of that service will damage the northern region, which is working hard to overcome the considerable economic difficulties that it faces; it needs every assistance to attract business and industry to the area. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that he will use his good offices to put pressure on British Rail to see that the east coast line sleeper service is retained for the benefit of the northern region.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Let me first declare an interest on behalf of my constituency which contains the end of the runway of Birmingham International Airport. Without our co-operation we could wreak havoc on British Airways, and all the independent airlines who use that greatly enhanced airway under a development plan that I am proud to say was initiated during my chairmanship of the transport committee in the west midlands.
    In that context I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on doing an excellent job in reaching a decision on the merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. He had to deal with an airline that is ranked only ninth in the world. The other eight airlines above it carry about 400 million passengers a year compared with under 20 million passengers a year which British Airways and British Caledonian together will carry. Therefore, internationally, it is still a small concern.
    At the same time, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission paid great regard to clauses that had to be inserted to protect the private operators. However, with respect, we have heard the fear that predatory action could be taken by British Airways before. It was only four years ago that the airline that was to take over British Caledonian this time, if British Airways did not, expressed those fears. If my memory serves me right, some four years ago that airline sold off five of its nine planes overnight
    980
    and availed itself of the bucket shop seats which British Airways was said at that time to have released upon the market as part of its charter business.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on making wise decisions and on the fact that excellent clauses which protected the independent operator and allowed the private charter airlines to continue carrying passengers in an extraordinarily competitive way were inserted in the agreement.
    The concept of good travel is not owned solely by the Government or the Opposition. There is no monopoly of rectitude on either side. Travel should be concerned with substantially increasing the provision of comfortable, safe and cheap travel, whether local, international, European or internal. We are still competitively miles from the fares level established by the United States of America on internal flights where fares are about one third of those priced here. We have a long way to go, but the Government have made great strides in that direction.
    The fear of the historical write-off of planes between British Airways and British Airtours has not materialised. Nor has the fear of predatory action. Part-plane charter —the use of the rear parts of planes for charter. which is sensible—has not done permanent damage to private companies, as was feared. The then Minister for Consumer Affairs gave an undertaking in Committee—I was there when he gave it ; indeed, I had asked for it—that his Ministry would keep an eagle eye on British Airways in case that ever happened, but it has not. We must continue, as we have done, to maintain the British flag in the air.
    As for road transport, there is still room for transfer from one mode of transport to another. I was particularly impressed this week by the 8,000 lorry trips a day that were saved by the transfer of 250,000 lorry journeys between the west country and London. One lorry a minute was taken off the roads of Somerset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and West London, through the simple expedient of giving a Government grant of some £3,700,000 towards a £8 million terminal to the Amey Roadstone Corporation for automatic limestone loading on to the railways. What a sensible use that is of our ground transportation infrastructure, and what a marked effect it will have.
    When I last looked at the figures, the amount of freight carried by British Rail was only about 5 per cent. of the total transportation ingredient. British Rail has made marvellous progress with the development of InterCity, with a price differential that is extraordinary when we take into account the low fares that inter-city coaches are able to charge. There is only the movement of mass quantities of raw chemicals to be developed in freight services. Despite the encouragement of deregulation, integration has continued to take place, even on the buses.
    One thing stands out a mile to anyone who studies the area, or who travels—as I do, along with many other hon. Members—as often as twice a week or more on the motorways, particularly the M1. Owing to such impediments as motorway repairs, which prevent rapid transit, a second M1 will have to he built, perhaps along the lines of the A5. If that infrastructure cannot be provided from public funds — as it probably cannot, although it is undoubtedly demanded—we must think of other methods. One, the two roads could carry freight only. Another possibility is the toll method, which has been so successful in America and on the continent for many years. The Italian autostrade were mostly provided

    981
    over a 30-year period, the first 20 years being used as a pay-back period and the final 10 as a profit period, when the motorway reverted into public ownership. That method must not be discarded. All possible mechanisms must be used to take account of ever-increasing demand.
    Mr. Morgan rose—
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has already had a very good time with his interventions, but I shall allow him to intervene yet again.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to raise a point about the autostrade and other motorways in continential countries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main benefits to Italy of putting a toll on the Autostrada del Sole to the south is that a high proportion of users are foreign tourists? The same applies to the autoroute that goes down towards Nice and Marseille, which is also tolled. A high proportion of its users will be German, Dutch, Belgian and British, rather than French.
    Mr. Bevan: The same argument could be deployed—and has been, on occasion—about joining up north and south Wales to introduce tourists to the other part of the country. But the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. This country is now experiencing the most massive upturn in tourism of all time. People and vehicles are flooding over, and that will be expedited by the successful advance of the Channel tunnel project which is about to take place. The same demand exists here as in Italy.
    We need a long-term, well-thought-out series of plans for road transport. It is our main line of communication. Of the £59 billion spent last year on transport, 96 per cent. was spent on the roads. No less than 84 per cent. of freight tonnage goes by road, as does 99 per cent. of freight transported in the building trade. There is a great demand for us to think ahead and produce a comprehensive and effective scheme for local road maintenance. It must include a combination of the statutory reinstatements that are perpetually making such a mess of our city roads, one after the other.
    We must also concentrate on improving safety standards. This week's Sunday Times pointed out, in a frightening article, that there have been 49 deaths in the past two years on the stretch of road between Lancaster and the junction of the M6 and the M61. Good though the Government's present funding for safety improvements is, we need a radical emergency programme in such situations.
    I commend the plans issued today by the British Road Federation, entitled "The Way Ahead", which I have only just been able to skip through. However, let us not deny the opportunity, highlighted by the introduction of the Dartford river crossing, to use private funding to create road infrastructure.
    The demands of freight transportation, which have risen by some 40 per cent. in the past two years, have been elephantine. We must include new trunk roads in our plans. I am the first to compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on his plans to invest £1 billion in the next five years in British Rail rolling stock, and on the £69 million contract awarded today to British Rail Engineering Ltd. That is excellent, and I know that the spin-off will benefit
    982
    those excellent train manufacturers, Metro-Cammell Weyman, near my constituency. However, local railway stock will need vast improvement.
    When I had the privilege of being the chairman of the passenger transport authority in my area I was able to come up with some of the plans. One of those plans was for a cross-city railway line. That line is now at breakdown point. When it first opened it added to travel along the line by 1,500 per cent. and had positive passenger-carrying advantage. It is breaking down because of the lack of investment in local railways. We must get British Rail to address itself to the vast investment needed in the rolling-stock programme, even before we proceed with the many metro rail schemes that are needed.
    My authority and the west midlands area will shortly bring forward a private Bill asking for a metro scheme. I will fully support that Bill because such a scheme is necessary, as are light electric railway schemes. However, in looking at such schemes we must also remedy the lack of investment in local railway stock.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who co-chairs with me the road passenger transport group in the House, is waiting to see whether I will mention buses. Of course, I will. The result of the Transport Act 1985 has been patchy throughout Britain. We are receiving different reports, which will be carefully monitored. However, this is not the time to bring them up as a point of discussion. My town, Birmingham, where West Midlands Travel has been formed, has covered around 100 per cent. of its services. I was staggered because I did not believe that that was possible. I concede that in that area and in other areas it has been a success. It is a success that should be universal but, regrettably, it is not. We shall continue to monitor the Transport Act 1985 to ensure that the integration—I was one of those able to plan that in the west midlands—continues to be a component part of the overall service. We shall aim for cheap prices and good quality service.
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues speaks of the transport needs of the nation and is a scathing indictment of the Government's policy. It cannot be said too often that good communications and an efficient transport system are important levers to bring about a prosperous economy and to provide jobs for our people. Heavens knows, with 3 million unemployed — that is the official figure, but there are many more—something needs to be done.
    The Government are now in their ninth year of office and the criticism of transport is wholly justified. In fairness to the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks he spoke about his plans and the roads programme. For some reason best known to himself, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) failed to mention the roads programme. Had he done so, he would have been on firm ground. The forecast outturn for spending on national roads in 1987–88 is £980 million. The provision for spending in the following year, 1988–89, is £1,000 million. That is an increase of only 2 per cent., which is hardly sensational. If we also consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast that inflation next year will be in the region of 4·5 per cent., in real terms expenditure on roads will fall rather than rise. That message was rubbed in well by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry).

    983
    What the Secretary of State has been saying has an element of duplicity in it. He is pretending that more is being spent when it is not borne out by the facts.
    The amount of traffic has been rising steadily. The latest figures from the Department of Transport show that, from the second quarter of 1986 to the second quarter of 1987, traffic increased by 8 per cent. overall and by 17 per cent. on motorways. Those figures are provisional, but a reassessment is certainly needed.
    A further criticism is that the new roads are being built to an inadequate standard. For example, there is the absurd proposal for a new 12-mile stretch of the M40 to be a two-lane carriageway. Already major sections of our trunk roads are having to carry traffic way above their design flow. For example, at junctions 4 and 5 on the M4, which is essentially the Welsh motorway, the 1986 traffic flow was 88,000 vehicles per day, whereas the design flow is 79,000 vehicles per day. Similar examples could be given in respect of the M1, M6 and M25. Surely the Government should have learned those simple lessons by now. With current and projected expenditure, there can be little prospect of relieving the congestion on our trunk roads and motorways.
    Traffic density on the roads is already the highest in Europe. It is well above the figures for Italy, France, West Germany and Belgium. There has been considerable underspending on local authority roads. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, road users and residents are suffering as congestion increases and maintenance standards fall.
    There is a need for the Government to accelerate the completion of the trunk road programme. They should review the assumptions in the national road traffic forecast and eliminate the underspend on local authority road construction and maintenance. It is vital that those measures are taken because today transport by road in Britain—I want to emphasise this—is predominant, for people and goods, whether for good or ill.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) seems to dwell in some sort of pre-Beeching era. He forgets about the importance of the motor industry for the British economy. He forgets that people like to have personal transport, which was once the prerogative of the rich. However, that is not to say that rail does not have a part to play. The Labour party believes in the hackneyed concept of an integrated transport system. We believe that that is vital to the future of this country. However, it needs investment to ensure an easier transfer of loads from one form of transport to another. The grants for sidings and rail freight facilities should be increased. There is also the need for the electrification programme to go ahead, especially from London to south Wales, especially since the go-ahead for the Channel tunnel has been given. We need electrification also on the Crewe-to-Holyhead line.
    I should like to see more development of local rail services. There has been some spectacular progress in the Cardiff area, where several local stations have recently been opened. I welcome those new facilities. In my own constituency, in the large village of Magor near the Severn tunnel, only 10 days ago a meeting was attended by more than 150 people who demanded, without dissent, a railway station there. I believe that their demand is justified. As a point of information, that matter rests at present with Gwent county council because it is the county council which, in conjunction with British Rail, decides such matters. I am sure that Gwent county council will see the
    984
    wisdom of the demand for a station at Magor. It is a valuable facility that could be provided at a small cost. The residents confidently hope that that facility will be made available by 1 May 1988.
    I should like to make a point of criticism about the Central Electricity Generating Board, which moves about 100,000 tonnes of coal by road to the Uskmouth power station. In addition, large quantities of coal are blended at Newport dock and forwarded to that power station by road. Those road journeys are unnecessary and pose considerable environmental problems. People do not like them. That freight could go by rail.
    Our transport needs in Wales are obvious, especially when one considers the dreadful unemployment figures. On the present method of compiling the statistics, in 1979 the unemployment figure would have been 73,100 or 7·3 per cent. Today, after eight and a half years of this Government, that figure is 148,800 or 17 per cent. —more than double the 1979 figure.
    There is a contrast between the prosperous south-east of England and impoverished south Wales. That prosperity comes down the M4 motorway to Reading, Swindon and Bristol but it stops at the Severn bridge, where there is a psychological barrier. People are met there by bollards and lane restrictions and the ultimate insult of a toll charge. That is the gateway to Wales, our lifeline. Those toll gates should be set aside. Much needs to be done to remove the despair in south Wales. The Chancellor has the resources to help, but he is obsessed with tax cuts. I remind him yet again of the Government's own submission to the European Economic Community just one year ago, when they pointed out that Wales had the lowest economic activity rate in Britain. How long is that neglect to continue? It is time that something was done.
    8.13 pm
    Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and especially to what he said at the beginning of his speech about the growth in road traffic, which he said was 8 per cent. last year, and in motorway traffic, which he said was 17 per cent. However, the more I listened the more difficult I found it to discern whether he was in favour of that increase in road traffic. I make no bones about the fact that I am very much in favour of it. 11 is socially good. More car ownership means that more people are able to derive enjoyment from their use, to travel about, and to satisfy their wish to make certain journeys more easily and conveniently.
    A large proportion of car owners are people who 10 or 15 years ago would not have been able to own a car. Car ownership among old age pensioners has doubled in the past 15 years. It is pleasant to think of retired people being able to drive around the country to visit their families. In an age when families are largely split up because they have to move about to take jobs far from the areas where they grew up, people lose touch even with brothers and sisters, let alone with more distant relatives such as uncles, aunts and cousins.
    It is pleasing to think of people being able to drive about to visit their relations at weekends. The increasing ownership of cars and the growth in the number of motorways which the present Government have been

    985
    building help to meet people's wishes to do such things —or at least, the wishes of most people; some may not want to see their relatives.
    I am in favour of the growth of car ownership and of the construction of motorways to meet the demand for their use, because it is socially beneficial. However, what worries me about motorways, especially the M25, is how close together some cars are driven. I do not know whether any studies have been made to measure whether driving behaviour on the M25 is worse than on other motorways, but if there are no such studies, there should be. Many people use the M25 and, although the behaviour of drivers on that motorway is normally orderly and drivers concentrate, they drive too close together at habitual speeds of 70, 80 or 85 miles an hour and often seem to be only 10 or 12 or 20 yards apart. That is dangerous if people have to stop suddenly or their attention is distracted. I am surprised that there are not more pile-ups. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask that a study is carried out to ascertain whether that is a serious and dangerous problem and what could be done about it.
    I turn from cars and motorways to the environment and especially to the environment around airports, such as Heathrow. The Government's amendment refers to "the Government's policies to safeguard the environment" and the Opposition's motion to
    "the increased damage to the environment".
    There are different views about what is happening. Certainly the environment around Heathrow is of great concern to my constituents in Twickenham, Whitton, Teddington and Hampton, who number about 90,000 including children, but who comprise only a small proportion of the more than 2 million who live within earshot of Heathrow.
    I am pleased that, 11 days ago, in reply to my question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he proposed not to increase the number of night flights allowed at Heathrow. I should like to go further than that and propose a total ban on all night flights, except in emergencies. On that, I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), whom I see in his place. I should like to take this opportunity of wishing him many happy returns of the day.
    Apart from the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who spoke earlier, several other right hon. and hon. Members who represent constituencies around Heathrow share my concern about aircraft noise. They include my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), for Esher (Mr. Taylor), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). I should like to add the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). As Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he does not speak on matters that are the responsibility of other Departments but he makes his views known in his own way.
    In the 17½ years during which I have had the honour to represent Twickenham no other matter has preoccupied me more continually than aircraft noise. It is a pestilence. It ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes and
    986
    gardens. It affects their work in offices, hospitals and schools, and on Sundays it affects churches. What people mind about is not only the peak loudness of each flight but the sheer number of flights. At Heathrow there are now more than 750 flights per day, which, at peak hours, means a flight every one and a half to two minutes. The noise lasts quite loudly for 40 to 50 seconds, there is then an interval of a further 40 to 50 seconds before the next flight. The problem is at its worst in the summer when people want to be in their gardens or keep their windows open at night. Furthermore, the noise is more audible in summer because it gets through the air which is lighter, whereas when the weather is cold it is heavier.
    Not everyone minds about aircraft noise, but a great many people do mind—some of them very much. Some people find it deeply annoying and upsetting and it spoils their lives. In a few cases, as has been shown by a study undertaken at the West Middlesex hospital, it is a cause of mental illness. For some, any addition to aircraft noise — [Interruption.] There seems to be some noise on the Opposition Benches. To those who suffer as a result of aircraft noise, any addition to it can be the last straw. They do not want the noise merely contained they want a substantial and permanent reduction. Over the years, my colleagues and I have fought to achieve just that.
    Obviously, the aviation industry is of national importance. It is a major employer. It brings foreign business men who may buy British goods, and it serves the tourist industry, which is increasingly important as a source of employment. However, aviation must be organised so that it does not ruin people's quiet enjoyment of their own homes. The quiet enjoyment of one's home has been enshrined as a basic principle of English law for centuries. However, the civil aviation Acts specifically exclude the right to sue for nuisance in respect of aircraft noise. A man may go to court to stop nuisance from noise or smell from a factory or a neighbour's home but he may not go to court to sue for damages for noise nuisance from aircraft because the Acts expressly prevent him from doing so. It follows that people who live near airports must depend on the Government of the day — in effect, the Secretary of State for Transport and his Ministers—to protect them against aircraft noise. They must also depend on their Member of Parliament to put pressure on the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes and I with the other hon. Members that I have named have consistently tried to do.
    Successive Conservative Governments have been sensitive to the problem. Two years ago, the Conservative Government refused to grant planning permission for the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. That was a remarkable decision, because it overrode the advice of the inspector at the public planning inquiry who, after studying the matter for two years, recommended that the construction of a fifth terminal should go ahead. The Conservative Government stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link which would have overflown the edge of my consituency. Most aircraft now have quieter engines, although there are some notable exceptions and aircraft are still not as quiet as I would like them to be.
    Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, had it not been for the combined votes of the Labour and Liberal members of the Committee that considered the Civil Aviation Bill and

    987
    three or four of its Conservative members, the Government would have introduced a limit on the number of flights entering and leaving Heathrow?
    Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Civil Aviation Bill introduced in 1984 contained provisions to restrict the number of flights at Heathrow. In Committee a vote was carried against it when the Labour Members, the only Liberal Member and three Conservative Members who represented constituencies with aviation interests or who had a particular interest in aviation matters voted together. Had one of those Members voted differently, the vote would have been a draw and the Chairman of the Committee would have had to cast his vote in accordance with convention for the Committee's business to continue. The Bill fell because its central provision was defeated, and it has never been revived. If that had not occurred we should now have a restriction on the number of flights allowed at Heathrow to 275,000 flights per year. I must say in all conscience that even that is high enough, amounting as it does to about 700 flights per day.
    As far back as the early 1970s a Conservative Government introduced a control on the number of night flights, and I am glad to have been instrumental in pressing them to do so. A good night's sleep is a basic health need but we have recently witnessed a massive campaign to increase the number of night flights allowed through Heathrow. An unholy combination of the airlines, the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority has brought pressure to bear on the Government to allow a substantial increase in the number of night flights.
    In his announcement last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed to cut by one quarter the number of night flights allowed through Heathrow and proposed a five-year freeze on the number of summer night flights at the existing level of about 2,750 for the six months from 1 April to 31 October. That would mean an average of about 15 flights per night. The present number allowed averages at 20 flights per night through the summer, which is 3,650 over the six-month period. That quota of about 20 per night was not fully used, the average number of flights being 15 per night for the summer of 1987. However, the number of flights was increasing each year and would soon have reached the quota of 20 per night. That is why the airlines wanted the quota increased.
    The Secretary of State refused their request. He put peace and quiet and health of the people above commercial interest and thus showed the Conservative Government to be more sensitive to the environment and the quality of life than a Labour Government or a Lib-Lab coalition dominated by the Labour party.
    I want the Secretary of State for the Environment to go further. Sleep is basic to health. I like being asleep, and wish I were asleep more often. I should like a total ban on night flights, except in emergencies. There should be an extra hour of sleep from 6.30 to 7.30 in the morning. What has been done is at least a step in the right direction, and I commend the Government for it. I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to the Secretary of State.
    8.29 pm
    Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The congratulatory remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will sound extremely hollow to my constituents, 1,400 or more of whom were declared
    988
    redundant by BREL this summer. That means that about 1,800 staff in the works in my constituency and some 200 or so of the BREL headquarters staff presently face redundancy. Of course, they are only the latest to do so during the Government's period of office. Whatever congratulatory words may have been uttered by the hon. Member for Twickenham to the Minister, and whatever soothing palliatives are offered by other hon. Members who represent Derbyshire, the work force in BREL in Derby feel that they have been misled and betrayed by the Government and their placemen in the industry, and they feel so with cause.
    The Secretary of State bragged — there is no other word for it—about the Government's wonderful record in investing in British Rail. I always listen with interest to such observations. I admire the way in which Ministers manage to rise above technical details when they make comparisons with the record of the last Labour Government — the minor technical details of their enjoying about £10,000 million to £12,000 million a year in North sea oil income, which was not enjoyed by that Government—and brag about what in that context are minuscule increases in investment.
    I note that the deputy director of Network SouthEast, in a fit of frankness which will possibly cost him his head at some stage, was quoted recently as saying:
    "We think that the level of investment we are planning will fit the amount of cash the Government will allow us to have."
    He thereby neatly disclosed the basis on which BR's investment planning has been pursued for several years now, since the real plans that BR knew that it needed for adequate investment in the future were withdrawn a few years ago. It puts forward now only what it knows the Government will approve.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Beckett: If the Minister will forgive me, I shall carry on. We are short of time.
    In 1985, even British Rail, under its present leadership, said that it needed, and would like, to replace 1,500 of its locomotive fleet. Current plans, as I understand them, are that about 171 of the 1,500 may be built in the next five years. Again, that puts the Secretary of State's boasting in a rather better context.
    I wish to say most about the opportunity within the investment as it exists that has been offered to my constituents and other hon. Members' constituents in BREL to participate in building such new rolling stock as the Government have been prepared to finance. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that BREL has historically got about 70 per cent. of the tenders that have been put out since competitive tendering was introduced. Of course that is the case, and it ties in neatly with the view of the Serpell inquiry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. It showed that BREL's prices were, and indeed are, competitive.
    Recent events have proved extremely worrying They have directly contributed to the redundancies that have been announced. When the decision was announced that the British Rail board should in future depend on competitive tendering in these matters, some criteria were published. I draw attention to one in particular. Criterion No. 2 was:
    "The competence and financial standing of private sector firms will be taken into account in assessing tenders."

    989
    When one looks at the way in which recent tenders have been awarded, it is difficult to see how that criterion has been observed.
    In 1984, when British Rail decided that it wanted to advance the time scale for introducing Sprinters and that, therefore, it was not possible to have extensive trials of the prototypes being built—one by British Rail and one by Metro-Cammell — it decided to treat the first group of 100 vehicles as a pre-production run and award the contract 50:50. In practice, it turned out that Metro-Cammell had such technical difficulties in making its prototype run that the board was forced to award the whole contract to BREL. Despite that, it does not seem to have cast any doubt on Metro-Cammell's competence, and the requirement for the next generation of Sprinters — about 468 vehicles, to be delivered by March next year — was split three ways between Metro-Cammell, British Leyland and BREL with the lion's share going to Metro-Cammell, which had just failed to deliver on the previous deal.
    I now refer to the peculiar affair of the mark 4 passenger coaches. In November 1986, there were strong rumours in Derby that Metro-Cammell had won the contract to construct mark 4 coaches. About 283 coach orders were awarded. That in itself was again a somewhat strange decision, because Metro-Cammell had had no experience of British Rail main-line coach construction. Many queries were raised—the Minister may recall my raising the matter in the House at the time—because, on good advice, it was believed within BREL that BREL's tender for the coaches was the lowest and that Metro-Cammell was able to come near the BREL tender only by beating the heads of other suppliers against the wall and trying to force them to make changes in their tenders. In the event, of course, as we suspected, the order for the 283 vehicles went to Metro-Cammell.
    Again, we were told that it did not matter — the Secretary of State sang the theme tonight — because BREL would get some of the sub-contract work. Indeed, it was awarded a contract to build bogies. Again, I hope that the Minister will recall that the contract was taken away from BREL earlier this year. It was decided that the bogie that it put forward, the T4 bogie, could not meet British Rail's specifications at the time. BREL believed that the bogies could be upgraded to meet the 140-mile-an-hour specification but it could not meet it here and now. The sub-contract was taken away from BREL and awarded to the Swiss firm, SIG.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for asking the Secretary of State to comment on the situation in regard to the order. Again, the Secretary of State most unaccountably forgot to include that in his observations. I hope that the Minister, despite the pressing demands on his attention, will manage to answer my question. Is it the case that the order that was given to the Swiss company was based on an untested design that had only been computer tested and not tested on the track? As I have pointed out to the Minister, our sources are usually pretty reliable, whatever the Minister may normally say in pooh-poohing them at the time.
    Is it further the case, as we have heard in Derby, that, now that the bogies are being tested, they have only attained the same smoothness of ride as BREL's, and that
    990
    the Swiss company also will not be able to meet the original specifications laid down by the board? If that is the case, I hope that it will not transpire that more consideration is being given to the Swiss company than was given to BREL, that the award of the bogie tender will be reconsidered, BREL's position also reconsidered and, perhaps, some part of the award given back to BREL.
    I now refer to the peculiar tendering for locomotives. A most strange argument has been put up about why BREL was not allowed to tender. One of the BREL's senior management wrote hon. Members a letter in which he said that BREL was not being allowed to tender because the board had to go for the most competitive outcome. If the board was so confident that BREL could not be the most competitive, why did it not let it compete and lose? The unworthy thought crosses one's mind that the board was afraid that, if it let BREL compete on equal terms, it might actually win the tender and that it had already decided that it wanted to put it not just to open competition but to open competition outside the country.
    A new argument recently surfaced in relation to the issue—that it would not be right for BREL to have had the order because it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Rail board, and so, if there were problems with the contract, they could not be pursued in law. I thought that the whole point of setting up BREL as such and not having railway workshops any more was that it would no longer be regarded as a wholly owned subsidiary. Indeed, it is the whole point of the process of competitive tendering that BREL does not have any preferential treatment and that it is supposed to compete, and does compete and frequently win, in the open market. Now, having said that it must compete on the open market, when it wins there it is now being told that it is not on the open market and that it cannot compete in any circumstances.
    I find that argument impossible to understand. The Minister, BREL and the British Rail board have not succeeded in justifying that argument. The significance to people in Derby is that, if that argument or the alternative that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) demolished — that BREL is not a power plant manufacturer which it has not been since the days of steam—are to be sustained, from where will the new orders for BREL come? Also, what about the reassuring noises that have been made to my constituents through one round after another of hundreds of redundancies? What future can there possibly be for BREL, in Derby or anywhere else?
    I wholeheartedly endorse the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North that there must be an inquiry into the tendering policy of the British Rail board and how it is working in practice. He said that that inquiry should look properly at the way in which those developments are taking place. Listening to the problems of my constituents and observing the devastating blow that those redundancies have been for the city of Derby, I believe that to set aside a British company—even a public sector British company that we know the Government hate—for the sake of encouraging foreign companies to compete and win orders is little short of economic treachery.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: The main burden of the attack from Opposition Members has been to suggest that the Government have not spent enough money on

    991
    public transport and on its investment programme. That is a dangerous charge to level, as are most of the normal stock in trade charges of the Opposition. It is dangerous because it invites the response that, when Labour was in power, the position was much worse, it was all cuts and candle ends, as it was in the case of the transport industries. It is a silly line of attack, because it invites people to tot up how much all the Opposition's pledges amount to over all the programmes that they think are inadequate; we soon see that the country would be bankrupt if we accepted all their advice.
    Another worrying aspect about the normal exchanges across the Floor of the House is that hon. Members concentrate simply on quantities of money. People are not interested in quantities of money spent. They are interested in the quality of service, the range of provision and what they get for their money. What is encouraging about the story of the transport industries and the transport sector in the last few years has been the concentration on value for money and the progress that has been made in a number of areas. The Secretary of State drew our attention to many hard figures of output, success stories in terms of roads constructed and new services opened. He might also have pointed out that it is now much cheaper in real terms to build a mile of motorway because of the success of tendering procedures and changes in the cost effectiveness of the road construction industry. That is to be greatly welcomed.
    Another line of argument of Opposition Members centred around British Rail Engineering Ltd., the implication being that the Government have not cared enough about it and have not lavished enough subsidy and attention on it. The only way that one can have a successful British Rail engineering business, or any other business, is to have customers, and products that those customers wish to buy. It is extraordinary that, until the contribution of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), there was no discussion about the tendering and the troubles that BREL has had in persuading customers to buy its product. Even the hon. Member for Derby, South made no mention of overseas orders. One would think that one of the main thrusts of BREL strategy should he to win a wide range of orders overseas that will guarantee jobs and provide employment.
    Mrs. Beckett: Although BREL has tried, it is not easy to win overseas orders when its own Government say that it is not competent to do things at home.
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are not saying that BREL is not competent. BREL has had many orders from British Rail. What matters is the relationship between BREL and BR. One would have thought that BREL has had enough orders for it to be able to persuade overseas rail contractors and Governments that it knows what it is doing and that it can provide the goods.
    Another line of argument that has a little more novelty than the money one is the argument that the Government are only seriously interested in privatisation, and that wherever privatisation comes into apparent conflict with competition, privatisation triumphs. The evidence is that exactly the opposite is true in transport. If one had wished to maximise the proceeds from privatising the bus industry, one would have strengthened the quasi-monopoly of the National Bus Company and sold it as a going concern with near-monopoly rights.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What about British Airways?
    Mr. Redwood: Instead, the Government went out of their way to inject competition and deregulation and to split the organisation up to get the benefits of smaller scale and competitive forces. The results have been extremely good.
    I will now come to British Airways, as that was just mentioned by an hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position. If they had wished to maximise the proceeds from the sale of British Airways, the Government would not have transferred any routes to British Caledonian when they did. The Government would not have ensured that they were strongly allied with the forces for deregulation and competition in Europe, nor would they have succeeded in getting deregulation of some of those routes that obviously affected the revenues and traffic of the main carrier, which was often British Airways. Again, there is strong evidence that where competition and privatisation came into dispute on maximising proceeds, the Government quite rightly voted strongly for competition, and the customer has undoubtedly benefited.
    Public transport services, far from being a picture of neglect and decline, are showing many signs of improvement, as has been illustrated by Conservative Members. They also show that one can create in good circumstances a virtuous circle of falling subsidy, increased usage of the services and increased investment, creating a further virtuous circle, with more usage, falling subsidy and more investment. That is exactly what is happening with London Regional Transport. I hope that it will also happen in more parts of British Rail's networks.
    I am pleased to say that in my own area, along the Reading-to-London line, and the southern region line to Waterloo, there is evidence that usage is rising quite sharply, there has been a welcome improvement in a new station and there has been some evidence of service improvements. The efforts of British Rail, coupled with population growth and, it is fair to say, coupled with the growing traffic jams on the principal motorway network, have encouraged an increased usage that will fuel a virtuous circle. I look forward to new timetables because I think that they will show more trains and better services. If BR can keep up its improvement in punctuality, cleanliness and reliability, it will create a virtuous circle that I would like to see carried across to many other parts of the country.
    A matter that relates to my constituency interest and the interests of neighbouring constituencies is the state of the M4 and the M25. Hon. Members know that those motorways are heavily clogged with traffic during the morning and evening peaks. There is a growing problem, not only because of economic growth and prosperity, and rising car ownership and usage, but because the Thames Valley has become a major centre of housing and population expansion. I should be grateful if there could be some communication between Whitehall Departments and if the Department of Transport could point out to the Department of the Environment that the more houses and development that are permitted along the Thames Valley, the greater the strain will be on the M4 and the M25 to the west of London and the more difficult that transport link will become. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would advise whether there are any plans to alleviate the

    993
    traffic problems along the M4 and the M25, as those problems will clearly get worse over the next 10 or 15 years.
    I welcome those signs of partnership between parts of the private sector and the public sector in providing a better and unified range of services to the traveling public, particularly in the growth of new types of retail and service activities in main stations. BR is making the right moves by understanding that running a railway business is not just a question of moving people from A to B in the most efficient or quick manner, but also providing a total service to the users of stations and trains, thus enjoying the many extra revenue opportunities that can come from being alert to the business opportunities on stations and trains.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give every encouragement to those signs of business acumen which we can now see on some of our better stations.
    8.49 pm
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As I represent Cardiff, West, it will not surprise hon. Members when I say that I want to concentrate my remarks on network south-east. Of course, I mean not Network SouthEast in England to which the Secretary of State referred earlier, but network south-east in Wales, which is much smaller, but very important to the people who live in the valleys of south Wales and in the coastal cities of Cardiff, Newport, Barry and Cwmbran.
    The Secretary of State made two interesting remarks about railway and public transport investment in his opening comments. He said that he had never refused an investment project presented to him by British Rail. He also said that British Rail had proved that the commuter was now willing to pay a higher price for a better service and the right hon. Gentleman welcomed that.
    Let us consider network south-east in Wales which incorporates the cities and valleys line. That is the seventh largest commuter rail network in Britain, or so I am told. It is much smaller than the London network and follows behind the networks in Glasgow, Tyne and Wear, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. When the local authorities started to take an interest in that network, there were 54 stations. Since the two Labour-controlled county councils of Mid Glamorgan and South Glamorgan took a constructive interest in it, it now has 61 stations. Therefore, the line has been increased by seven stations and it is expected that the network will have 70 stations before very long.
    When the two Labour-controlled local authorities started to take an interest in the network, they had to pay 100 per cent. of the costs of new stations for the line. British Rail rapidly realised that new stations meant increased usage of the whole service and it is now willing to pay 25 per cent. of the costs of new stations. However, the network is still reliant on co-operation between the local authorities. As we can well imagine, the Conservative opposition on the authorities — although there is virtually no Conservative opposition on Mid Glamorgan county council — derided the concept of investment in new stations by local authorities. However, that concept is now widely accepted by everyone.
    994
    The authorities have done their bit. They are grant-aiding or building new stations and British Rail has promised to pay its percentage. Therefore, South Glamorgan finally pulled off the feat of grant-aiding the construction of the first new passenger railway in Wales for more than 75 years — the inner-city link line including four new stations, all of which are in my constituency. However, British Rail's contribution was to bring into service 30 new Sprinter sets. That would have allowed smaller trains to run on the line than the diesel multiple units that were used before. The Sprinter sets would run more frequently in the two-car set-up and be very useful for commuting. Unfortunately, between the agreement reached by the two county councils and British Rail and the opening of the service some six weeks ago, British Rail cut the 30 Sprinter sets first to 22 and eventually to 18. The result was utter chaos when the new service opened in early October. Commuters have lost jobs because they could not get to work on time. Others have arrived late. The levels of discomfort have been very high and revenue has been lost because guards at unmanned stations cannot get through the overcrowded trains to collect fares from those who did not pay before they boarded the train. The shortfall of investment in Sprinter sets by British Rail has meant that what should have been a major stride forward in public transport through cooperation of the kind commended by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been impossible to get off the ground.
    Commuters are disillusioned, especially commuters in my constituency, because they cannot get a seat as the trains have been filled up on their way into central Cardiff at stations further up in the coal-mining valleys as people in those areas have a greater dependence on commuting into central Cardiff for employment than ever before. By the time the trains reach stations in the suburbs of Cardiff, people simply cannot get on. Whereas people are willing to put up with that level of discomfort for a while, standing every so often, especially when there is the compensation that it is unlikely that the guard will be able to collect the fares, in the end commuters will refuse to use that service. Ultimately, they will refuse to take jobs which depend on them getting to work on time. That can hardly be in keeping with the image of the enterprise society and the growth in jobs that Conservative Members continue to boast about and that they claim to see when they consider the employment figures.
    If the Secretary of State is to be believed, the major problem that I have described could not have come about as a result of British Rail putting forward an adequate investment project, so it must have resulted from the fact that British Rail felt too afraid to bring forward an adequate investment project for Sprinter sets. If what the Secretary of State has told the House is true—that he has never refused an investment project put forward by British Rail — he must consider the decision-making procedures within British Rail, for which he is responsible, to discover why British Rail had to cut the number of Sprinter sets from 30 to 18 after it has reached agreement with the two county councils.
    We can well imagine the sense of letdown in those two county councils and the sense of disappointment among commuters. The next time a co-operative venture of that type involving municipal enterprise — which Conservative Members profess to be impossible — is undertaken to assist the residents, there will be a sense of

    995
    disappointment if British Rail does not have a high enough external financing limit to put in capital investment for adequate numbers of train sets, especially when the local authorities are opening new railway lines, as is the case in my constituency.
    I want to consider briefly the question of the second Severn bridge. That bridge is badly needed to make the M4 the motorway that it was intended to be. The M4 motorway, including the Severn bridge, was originally designed as one motorway to link south Wales with the west and south-east of England. It was of colossal importance for the distribution of goods into and out of Wales and for industrial development since the late 1960s when the Severn bridge was opened. Over that time, we have lost more than 40,000 jobs in steel manufacturing and 40,000 jobs in coal mining and we have had to try to transform the economy from being mainly dependent on production from those two heavy industries. Indeed, no region anywhere in Europe has been so dependent on only two industries as south Wales was in the mid-1960s. We have had to attempt to transform those industries and we are now totally dependent on the free flow of traffic along the M4 across the Severn bridge. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will agree with me on that matter.
    The trouble with the M4 began six or seven years ago because of the rapid build up of commercial traffic. It has shaken the foundations of the bridge to such an extent that there are constant lane restrictions. Industrialists have ceased to have faith in the bridge, so we now have two M4s —one in England and one in Wales, divided by a Berlin wall in the middle. The Severn bridge is not supposed to act like the Berlin wall. I am not sure whether I believe the east or west German propaganda or whether it is intended to keep the Welsh out or the English in.
    The Rank Hovis McDougall company, in an interview in the Financial Times yesterday, was asked why it had abandoned the largest industrial project in job terms for Wales since the Government took office in June 1979. Some 800 jobs would have resulted from that project at the Dragonparc plant in Merthyr. The new owners, Rank Hovis McDougall, had taken over from Avana Bakeries, which had engendered this project. It decided not to proceed with it because chilled foods cannot be distributed dependably from south Wales and because the distribution costs are horrendous. The company did not specifically mention the Severn bridge, but I am sure that the gentlest pressure on the directors would lead them to say that that is the problem.
    I am aware of the recent abandonment by the printing industry of a £10 million project in south Wales for precisely the same reason. If publications must be with W. H. Smith and Son Ltd. or John Menzies plc on Thursday morning, it is no good getting them there by Thursday night because of problems on the Severn bridge.
    We urgently need a second Severn bridge. Before the election, Ministers at the Welsh Office — who are responsible for the Severn bridge along with the Secretary of State for Transport, although he has the prime responsibility — were going around south-east Wales saying, "The Severn bridge is now a committed fact in the Government's transport planning. It is just a matter of getting it designed, on the stocks and going through the planning and land acquisition procedures." As soon as the election was over the tune changed—"It is no longer a committed scheme. It will come only when demand
    996
    justifies it. Do not forget about the £35 million that we are committed to spending on strengthening the existing Severn bridge." Many engineers believe that that strengthening is necessary only because the Government would not commit themselves early enough to a second Severn bridge to enable heavy lorries to be diverted from the bridge, where they can cause damage if they go across three or four in a row.
    We in South Wales are dependent for our industrial redevelopment prospects on the Government's commitment during the lifetime of this Parliament to a second Severn bridge. If they are not, we have little chance of reducing unemployment levels to those of the south-east of England. The bridge is a major psychological blockage to getting investment from the south-east, where most of the investment decision-makers live. They are aware that the Severn bridge is only 130 miles away from central London but they regard it as being 260 miles away because they hear the stories about the cones, the lane restrictions and the closures to high-sided vehicles on windy days. They know that that is a reason for not investing in south Wales and, if they did, why they would want to be promised a higher return than on the east side of the bridge.
    This deprivation cannot continue if Wales is to believe that it is part of the prosperous future that the Government are promising. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister of State will offer a commitment to the constituents of south Wales. We live in the other southeast—south-east Wales. The fact that south-east Wales elects Labour Members and that the other south-east elects Tory Members should not be a reason for the Secretary of State to be unwilling to take an interest in the economic future of south Wales, for which a second Severn bridge is essential.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Michael Irvine: At the heart of the debate is the link between an efficient transport system and the economic growth. A good transport system and excellent communications can stimulate economic growth; poor communications can strangle it.
    I represent a fast-growing town in a fast-growing part of the country. It is a part of the country where transport strains are particularly apparent. We have an out-of-date infrastructure. Superimposed on that out-of-date infrastructure are the strains of fast growth. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the railway links. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned, quite properly and with pride, the recent electrification of the railway line from Liverpool street through Ipswich to Norwich. Frankly, although it sounds good in the ministerial statements and looks good in public relations brochures and magazines, the efficiency of that line is lamentable. There is chronic overcrowding and regular unpunctuality.
    It may be that the figures produced for trains that arrive within five minutes of their allotted time do not look too bad, but that does not go to the heart of the problem because — it is something that affects British Rail's statistics for unpunctuality across the country — the greater number of trains arriving late is concentrated in the peak hours when more people are travelling. That means

    997
    maximum damage to efficiency and maximum incon-venience to the travelling public. When we consider BR statistics for unpunctuality, we must bear that fact in mind.
    Travellers from East Anglia want to see a substantial improvement in punctuality during peak hours. It is not just a matter of punctuality. The overcrowding is regularly chronic during peak hours. On the hour-long journey between Colchester and London people often have to stand in considerable inconvenience and discomfort.
    The knee-jerk reaction is to blame the current management of the line. However, that is not entirely fair because the source of the trouble goes back a good deal further in time. But some progress is being made. Improvements are being carried out to the signalling system. Gradually we are beginning to get better rolling stock, although the eastern region has a history of being handed the left-overs from other regions. The lesson to be learnt is that it is necessary to plan ahead. In a fast-growing area, it is important to take future needs into account and to build the necessary capacity into the transport network.
    The same problem is apparent on the road system. The links between Ipswich and London have recently improved considerably with the bypass on the A12 around Chelmsford. However, pressures are already building up during the peak hours on the A12 into London and on the A45 to the midlands. Again, with a view to the future, I remind the Minister that the completion of the A1-M1 link, so long delayed and so eagerly awaited, will place major additional pressures on the A45. It is yet another example of why it is necessary to look to the future.
    What causes me great anxiety is the repeated tendency of the Department of Transport to underestimate future traffic growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has already pointed out that part of the strain and trouble currently experienced by the transport network is due to the very success that the Government have had in bringing about seven years of uninterrupted, steady economic growth.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem. He has rightly drawn the Government's attention to the severe problem within out railway system. However, why does he shy away from the obvious conclusion to his analysis? The external financing limits of BR have been reduced so much by the Government that it cannot provide the proper rolling stock, proper signalling system and proper track renewal that is absolutely essential to go hand in hand —if one accepts what the hon. Gentleman has said — with industrial growth. But the same problems that he described exist in areas in which there is no industrial growth.
    Mr. Irvine: The hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round. In fact, the Government have been putting pressure on British Rail to take a more commercial approach. Opposition Members always say that any problem such as the railway or road network can be solved by throwing money at it. The correct approach is to examine the matter commercially. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) rightly said that we should encourage British Rail to make better commercial use of its substantial assets.
    998
    Before I was interrupted I criticised the Department of Transport for its repeated failure to look far enough ahead when planning the road network, and its consequent underestimation of traffic growth. When one hears talk of the M40 link being built with only two-lane carriageways, one trembles. That motorway link should be built with three lanes, and when roads are built in the future they should be built with a designed capacity for expansion.
    I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to examine ways of introducing private capital and finance into improving our transport network in general. There has already been considerable progress in tendering procedures, which has brought down costs dramatically. There are already improvements in the standard of inspection and the quality of building of motorways and bridges. Now we need more private capital to be brought in along the lines of the planned financing of the Thames crossing at Thurrock.
    In conclusion, a reflection on the colossal amount that is due to be spent on the Channel tunnel: if that money were to be spent instead on improving the infrastructure of this country's transport, there would be considerable benefits all round.
    9.13 pm
    Mr. Tony Banks: I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) refer to the Channel tunnel in a lively and animated speech. I find it interesting that the advertisements for the Channel tunnel are using the statue of the mannequin pis from Brussels.
    Mr. David MarshallPronounced "pees".
    Mr. Banks: I stand corrected by my hon. Friend. I can think of no more appropriate statue to use to encourage people to take up shares in the Channel tunnel.
    I wish to discuss London. The Secretary of State's speech was highly self-congratulatory — and aggressive, for him. That was a pleasant change, but, to be frank, his speech bore no relation to reality in London. I should be a little more convinced of his arguments if I thought that he was a regular user of London transport during the rush hour. I am sure that several hon. Members on both sides of the House use that system during the rush hour and they know just how bad it really is. The Government's policy towards London Regional Transport is reducing the transport system in the capital to chaos and discomfort.
    Mr. George Foulkes: The capital of England.
    Mr. Banks: Indeed. I am grateful for all these late interventions.
    I hope that the Secretary of State has had a chance to read The London Evening Standard of Friday 13 November. Its front page carried a story about a major independent inquiry into the shortcomings of the services that are being provided. It said:
    "The Trade and Industry Secretary … is to announce the terms for the inquiry—to be carried out by the monopolies and mergers Commission—within the next month.
    Lord Young's decision follows widespread complaints in recent weeks about the efficiency of the Underground.
    Public attention has been focused on the shortcomings of the network since LRT decided to increase fares next January by an average 12 per cent. — three times the rate of inflation."
    I hope that whoever sums up for the Government will tell us how widespread the complaints to the Department of

    999
    Transport have been, and how detailed will be the inquiry into the running of the London underground. The Minister knows that, because of the policies of the Government, revenue support to LRT has been cut from about £190 million in 1984 to £75 million in 1987, making it the least supported public transport system of any Western capital city. That is the situation in London.
    Next year, LRT's income from concessionary fares will be greater than the level of revenue support. It is quite clear that the Government want to reduce revenue support to zero and to throw the whole burden on to London's ratepayers who have little if any say whatever in the transport policies of London Regional Transport. We go through a charade once a year when we have a one and a half hour debate about the LRT revenue and subsidy support. That is the only control that the House and London Labour Members have over policy decisions that used to he taken by the transport committee of the Greater London Council.
    Whatever Conservative Members thought about the GLC, I hope that the mists of time have perhaps given them a more rosy vision of how things used to be when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was the leader of the Greater London council. At least at that time elected members could be questioned by various interest groups and took decisions in the full glare of the public spotlight and media interest.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, when he was in control as a GLC member, the number of passengers using the London underground fell from 594 million in 1979 to 498 million in 1982? Since LRT took over in 1984 and it was nationalised, the number has risen to 766 million.
    Mr. Banks: More people were using the buses. If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) looks at his source material, he will find that that was the case. Fares were considerably cheaper on the underground. Now one is seeing an inexorable rise in fares because of the Government's determination to remove all forms of revenue subsidy from London Regional Transport. One is seeing a greater degree of traffic chaos on the roads. We have not yet had deregulation in London but, unfortunately, we expect to receive it some time in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained bitterly about access to the House becoming more and more difficult by the day because of the number of commuter coaches that ignore all the yellow lines and park all round the Palace of Westminster. One can see them outside the underground stations in the evening. People are now turning to private contractors because the public transport system of this capital city is being effectively destroyed by the policies of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman has obviously found another nugget.
    Mr. Bennett: In refuting my point about the underground, the hon. Gentleman said that bus passenger journeys were increasing under the GLC. That is not true. The lowest figure for bus passenger journeys for London Transport was attained under the GLC in 1982 with 1,043 million passengers. It has now gone up to 1,147 million.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman should get the position clear. I said passengers. That is the important thing. I am quite prepared to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman on a Clapham omnibus on any day that he wants to have such a discussion, and I shall explain to him exactly what is going on.
    The Government's policies are a recipe for chaos, not only in London but throughout the country. I would not want it on my shoulders. The Minister is ensuring that London will descend into traffic chaos, and I hope to be around to point that out to him.
    9.19 pm
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: This has been an interesting debate. We have had a massive ideological split between the Secretary of State for Transport, who has extolled the virtues of the Government's competition policy and said that it was in the interest of the travelling public, and Conservative Back Benchers, who have systematically slammed his policies and said that they have failed in almost every aspect.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) made a typically knowledgeable speech about transport, in which he rubbished the Government's claims about British Rail. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) advocated the need for an adequate road-building programme. He rightly said that the Secretary of State's claims that the Government had a great record w shout about in terms of road building were bogus. He observed that next year there will be a reduction in the level of spending on that programme.
    Mr. Fry: I said that the Government have been successful until now. I was concerned about the future. They have been successful in comparison with the Labour Government.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has led me to my next point.
    The Secretary of State made great play about the record of the Government, who are now eight years old—old enough to bear the consequences of their failures in terms of their investment programme in the construction of new motorways and trunk systems. The Governments record has not surpassed that of the Labour Government. It is a matter of public record. The Labour party did not produce the figures; they were produced by the Royal Automobile Club. In no year since 1979–80—effectively the last year of the Labour Government — have the Conservative Government spent more money on motorway construction. That is a matter of record and makes nonsense of the Secretary of State's attempt to convince the House otherwise.
    The Secretary of State can say that plans for the future will include increased spending on road construction, but the hon. Member for Wellingborough noted that the Government have not behaved in the way claimed by the Secretary of State.
    I was fascinated by the speeches of many Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) advocated the benefit of nationalisation. Some hon. Members extolled the virtues of the services provided by British Rail — a nationalised system — and said how successful it is. There is much suspicion of nationalisation and national programmes among Conservative Members.

    1001
    I understand the reason for that. More than 90 per cent. of Government spending has been on the roads system, and they have made a complete mess of it.
    The report of the National Audit Office in 1985 examined the Department of Transport's expenditure on motorways and trunk roads. It expressed concern and disquiet about the Department's basic inability to understand what is going on. It commented that, while the Department of Transport was good at bringing in schemes to unblock specific traffic jams, it did not take into account the fact that traffic would be thrown on to other areas. Between 1985 and 1987 the Department planned to start £48 million worth of road schemes showing negative economic returns. This is the Government who lecture the Opposition on the need for economic and fiscal prudence. The Minister looks askance at that comment, but he is the only one who has held office in that Department for four years.
    The Secretary of State tells us about the wonders of the roads programme, but that is an area where the Government may feel vulnerable. It is not surprising that Tory Back Benchers have spent so much time attacking the Secretary of State. Perhaps he now begins to understand why five of his predecessors have disappeared from that bed of nails. On that basis, it may not be too long before he also disappears.
    One of the most interesting speeches was that of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is not in the House at the moment. I am sure that he has a good reason. He pointed to the failure of the Government's competition policy for airlines. He said that competition was at the forefront of the Government's White Paper. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) claimed that the Government had persuaded British Airways to give up routes and slots to BCal. The hon. Member for South Hams rightly argued the opposite. Once again, there was inconsistency on the Government Back Benches, which mirrors the inconsistency between the Front Bench and the Back Benches.
    The hon. Member for South Hams is right. BCal is falling into the hands of British Airways, or whoever, because the Government wanted to fatten British Airways for the market and were not prepared to allow space in the market for BCal to operate routes that it had been promised. That is the view also of BCal and of other independents. So the Government's competition policy for airlines hardly bears examination.
    Many of my hon. Friends from outside London referred to deregulation, which was almost the jewel in the crown of the Government's competition policy. The Government claim that deregulation has been a great triumph for the National Bus Company. We still do not know, however, what price was obtained for the NBC subsidiaries as they were sold off. We could assess the merits of the Government's claims if the Minister of State were to make that information available so that we might know what went on company by company rather than on an aggregate basis.
    We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) about the plight of the Newcastle metro system which was in a sense one of the jewels in the crown of public transport throughout Britain and which has been copied in the United States by those who recognise its viability as a public transport scheme for the
    1002
    future. What has happened in Newcastle is not dissimilar to what we have seen in other areas. There has been the institutionalisation almost of instability in the transport system. It will take years to settle down.
    We do not believe that we can make a definite and final judgment on deregulation yet because the process is still unravelling. Nevertheless, we can begin to point to some of the detrimental effects of deregulation. For example, patronage in the metropolitan areas is down. We heard about an increase in miles travelled, but in reality passenger miles have decreased by 10 per cent. throughout the metropolitan areas. Nationally the figure is not dissimilar. The decrease in Merseyside is about 20 per cent. That may be a special case because there has been a massive increase of over 50 per cent. in fares. Although that is an extreme case, in most areas fares have gone up following deregulation.
    Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend said that he would have reservations about giving a definite judgment on deregulation. Does he know that the Minister of State has already given a definite judgment? He gave it before the legislation came into force, because the whole philosophy of deregulation was based upon studies set up by the Minister of State. When we asked him what sort of quantitative analysis had been done about these trials, it transpired that there had been none. His judgment was based on his visit to Hereford, when he jumped on and off a few buses and asked a few old ladies how deregulation was going. They said it was great, and he came back and said that deregulation would work because many people had told him so.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister of State is one of the strongest advocates of competition. He told the Standing Committee, on which my hon. Friend served, that competition was at the heart of the Government's approach to public transport and deregulation and that it was an important stimulus to all the benefits that we were told would ensue.
    Greater Manchester is one of the few areas, other than Strathclyde, where there has been genuine competition. The Minister of State spoke recently at the Adam Smith Institute about the competitive process. He asked — I paraphrase and he may wish to correct me—whether it was unfair that the publicly owned bus company in Greater Manchester should respond to competition with the minibuses. He asked whether it was not an abuse that the public sector should choose to compete against others. The Minister of States shakes his head. I am sure that he will correct me later.
    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo rose—
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as time is running short and he was not present for most of the debate.
    Given the failure of and uncertainty about deregulation throughout the country, will the Minister of State tell us that he is now prepared to think carefully before foisting the same thing on London? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the disasters of the Government's approach to London and the south-east. We have heard how bad London transport is. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has referred the Secretary of State for Transport to the

    1003
    Monopolies and Mergers Commission because he thinks that this great triumph of nationalisation, as the hon. Member for Pembroke put it, is failing. It is failing for a simple reason — systematic underinvestment by the Government.
    Like a magician, the Secretary of State told the House earlier about the £300 million worth of goodies a year on offer to London Regional Transport. We welcome that investment because it is badly needed. It is needed on the northern line where trains which are supposed to run every two or three minutes take 20 minutes to arrive. Opposition Members know to their cost what damage that causes.
    Mr. Flannery: One of today's newspapers contains a letter about crowded platforms on the underground due to the late running of trains. A lady, who was only 1 ft away from the edge of the platform and unable to move, was knocked on to the track.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend demonstrates the real crisis about which Conservative Members know nothing because they do not use public transport. They do not see how the failure of the Government's policies affect the ordinary people of London.
    The Conservative party claims to be the party of the nation, but I have always found it difficult to understand what unifies it. Many Labour Members have talked about the Government's transport policy failures outside the metropolitan areas — areas which are economically under-developed and where transport is an important factor in their development. I refer to Scotland, Wales, the north of England and the south-west.
    In the south-east the position is different, but the cry from Conservative Members is just the same: that the Government are incompetent and have failed the southeast, and with that I must agree. The M25 has been slammed by Conservative Members, and rightly, because it shows the failure of planning to which the Government are a party. The M25 is supposedly the great traffic route out of central London. I remember not so long ago the Prime Minister standing on the M25 boasting about her Government's triumphs in the creation of this brand new orbital motorway. Yet, almost as soon as she had stepped off it, the traffic was way ahead of expectations.
    The M25 is a failure because the south-east is being over-developed economically. The Government have failed to address the problems of over-development. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) wanted the Government to prevent further development in the Thames valley because of its grossly inadequate infrastructure. The Government have been in power for eight years and their own Back Benchers are rightly telling them that they have failed to invest in the infrastructure of this over-developed part of the country, while other parts of the country, which could cheerfully have used the £1 billion spent on the M25, have not had similar opportunities made available to them.
    The Secretary of State told the House that shipping was a vital part of the nation's transport needs, yet the Government have presided over the virtual collapse of the merchant fleet. Shipping receives far too little attention in the House, and it is important that we should recognise the scale of the collapse of the British merchant fleet.
    In 1979, when the Government came to power, the merchant fleet had nearly 1,300 ships and about 80,000 serving seamen. By September this year there were about
    1004
    465 ships and fewer than 30,000 working in the industry. At the same time, we have seen the flagging out of Britain's trade, dependency on foreign ships and even dependency in strategic terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do?"] If hon. Members will listen, I shall tell them.
    One thing that we would do would be to think seriously about reserving coastal and ferry shipping to domestic users. For example, the Swansea to Cork ferry is operated by a Polish ferry with a Polish crew. While that Polish crew is composed of merchant seamen in this country, in Poland no distinction is drawn between the military and merchant navies. In other words, we already have the Polish military navy in Britain's soft underbelly. Even Conservative Members should find that a little surprising. They represent the party of patriotism that would lead us into a great future, but in the process would sell every strategic control that the nation has over its military or economic future.
    The Secretary of State said that the Government had a good safety record. The Opposition completely concur with many of the measures that the Secretary of State introduced following the Zeebrugge disaster, but we would be considerably happier if the inspectorate was in place in his Department to ensure that those regulations work.
    The Secretary of State recently sent me a copy of the consultative document on operational procedures, management ashore, logbook entries and the reporting of accidents — an important step forward. The enclosed letter says:
    "Such manuals will be required to be available to the Department surveyors who would inspect them in the course of their visits to roll-on/roll-off passenger vessels."
    We welcome that. However, while the present Government have been in power, there has been a massive decrease in the number of surveyors in the Department of Transport. No doubt the Government will tell us that that bears some relation to the decline in the merchant fleet, which we accept. But it is disturbing that, even in the year in which the tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise is still alive in people's minds, there has been a decline in the number of inspectors and surveyors. Indeed, it was at the inquiry into the sinking that the Department's own chief surveyor made the point that he did not have enough inspectors on his books to inspect ferries regularly to prevent such disasters from occurring.
    We shall support the Secretary of State in his safety measures, because that is right and proper. However. we shall condemn him absolutely if he fails to provide adequate personnel to ensure that the new procedures work. The Opposition's case is that the Government have neglected many of the nation's vital infrastructure needs, whether it be shipping, air transportation, the railways or the roads. They have relied on the market system in an anarchic way, and that has reduced the nation's capacity.
    The country needs adequate planning. It will not get that from the Government unless they change their ways.
    9.40 pm
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I understand that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was to have wound up this evening's debate, but is unwell. I am sure that the House will wish him a swift return to his normal rumbustious good health, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.

    1005
    During last week's all-night sitting on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, I wondered at times why Labour Members were so determined to talk out the debate on transport that was scheduled to take place the following day. Perhaps they were more conscious than their Front Bench of the weakness of the case to be deployed. Nevertheless, we have had a wide-ranging debate tonight, and I shall try to reply to all the points put to me.
    The hon. Member for Stretford asked about the alleged inadequacy of investment by London Regional Transport. That investment is now higher than it has ever been, and LRT is carrying more passengers than it has ever carried. It now seems to be suffering the penalty of success, and must wait for the £45 million that we have approved for investment in new rolling stock before the pressure can be eased.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about the sale of National Bus Company subsidiaries, and about the prices being obtained. Forty-nine companies out of 72 have been sold. It would damage future negotiations if we were to reveal the prices paid in the individual sales so far. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that 29 of those sales have been local management buy-outs, which I hope he will welcome.
    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity to congratulate British Rail on the progress being made on the Windsor link in Manchester, which will be completed and opened for the first part of its business next May. I am also sorry that he did not take the opportunity to congratulate British Rail on the station at Humphrey park in his constituency, and the neighbouring stations at Atherton, Hag Fold and Salford crescent.
    However, let me turn from the hon. Gentleman's failure to seize those opportunities of congratulating British Rail to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who began his speech by claiming that he did not like attacking British Rail, but nevertheless proceeded to do so with gusto. He claimed that British Rail can obtain approval only for investments that pay off in 12 months. He is quite wrong.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I did not say that.
    Mr. Mitchell: I wrote it down. When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, I think that he will find it there.
    The normal return on investment is 7 per cent., spread over the life of the investment. On loss-making services, we use the best return on outlay to achieve the quality standards that have been set.
    The hon. Gentleman claimed that the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Network South-East said that cleanliness had deteriorated. That is not so. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read page 107 of the report, which states that British Rail's carriage cleaning has improved considerably since 1980, and is continuing to improve. The hon. Gentleman attacked British Rail for having increased some of the cut-price fares which had led to overcrowding on some services last summer. That is plain business common sense. If one runs a special offer to the extent that it is crowding out one's full fare-paying passengers, one reduces the attraction of the cut-price offer in order to enable full fare-paying passengers to be carried in a normal state of quality and comfort.
    The hon. Gentleman attacked British Rail for not electrifying the rail to Aberdeen because it said that
    1006
    electrification is not commercially viable. I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. What is wrong with the HST 125 which goes to Aberdeen? It goes faster than the trains on the electrified west coast main line. If the hon. Gentleman were ever to become Secretary of State for Transport, would he wish to see investment in unviable propositions? Heaven help the country if he would.
    Mr. Morgan rose—
    Mr. Mitchell: I will not give way, because I have only just started and I have a lot of ground to cover.
    I wish that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North had taken the opportunity to see the significant progress that British Rail is making on the electrification of the east coast main line and found time to congratulate it on the three stations that have been opened not far from his constituency.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) raised the question of the Dornoch bridge. There was no application from British Rail for investment approval. It would have cost £16 million in order to safeguard £250,000 of revenue. If the hon. Gentleman ponders those figures, he will see why British Rail did not see fit to use that as a means of expending its resources.
    The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) represents a BREL town, as does my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), but there was such a contrast in their approaches. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spewed out her vitriol, saying that the Minister and British Rail management are all involved in a plot to do down BREL workers. She is wrong. She attacks competitive tendering, but fails to realise that British Rail does not have a monopoly. It is in a competitive world and it has to give the best value for money in order to attract its customers. To do that, it has to obtain the best value for money itself when it is buying.
    There has been £3 billion-worth of investment by British Rail since 1979 and that means that there are new vehicles which are designed to require less maintenance. Because the vehicles are out of service for less time, there are fewer vehicles to maintain. The hon. Lady should know that British Rail has changed its pattern of maintenance, so that most of it is now being done in the depot. Part exchange has revolutionised the system of British Rail maintenance; the hon. Lady should know that.
    The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) claimed that British Rail's investment submissions equate with the sum that British Rail expects the Government to allow it to spend. She must have missed the speech of her hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, who complained that British Rail has not been spending up to its EFL. They cannot have it both ways.
    The hon. Lady asked about the bogies for the class 91. Both BREL and SIG bogies were subject to theoretical testing. BREL fell far short of the specification, but SIG met it. The theoretical tests have been subject to independent verification and are confirmed. British Rail is still of the view that the BREL bogie would not meet the specification and that the SIG bogie will.
    Mrs. Beckett: Having told us all about the theoretical study, will the Minister confirm that in practice the Swiss bogie does not meet the requirements either?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady may have received leaked results of the SIG bogie, which is currently being tested to

    1007
    give the SIG experience of British operating conditions. That is not the bogie that will be used on the mark 4. That is where the rumour came from. British Rail is satisfied that the bogie will deliver as required.
    The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who spoke for the Liberal party, claimed that the Government have neglected Wales and gave some examples. He said that there were no high-speed trains in Wales. I am sorry that he was not there when I flagged off the Red Dragon HST from Cardiff to London. He said also that there were no Sprinters in Wales. Of course, I am not as familiar with the Principality as the hon. Gentleman, but it is strange, because I thought that Holyhead, Bangor and Rhyl were in Wales and they have Sprinters. They also have services into Cardiff valley, Shrewsbury, Pwllheli, Aberystwyth and on the lines from Cardiff to Chepstow and Cardiff to Hereford. All those lines have Sprinters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that no area has Super Sprinters yet, but they are to be deployed in Wales.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) drew attention to the potential of a British Rail route from Ashford, through Redhill, to Reading as was envisaged by Brunel and endorsed by Dr. Beeching, for the benefit of the Channel tunnel. The joint consultation committee that meets in Kent has Commissioned a study, as a result of which there will be a further reappraisal of the capacity and routing of Eurotunnel traffic. A report will he available next summer and I shall ensure that those who produce it take account of my hon. Friend's suggestion. My hon. Friend also asked me about coach operators not paying their track costs. They almost cover their track costs but do not receive the substantial subsidy that British Rail enjoys on its operations.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raised, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), the issue of environmental damage from juggernauts on the roads. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley on having identified a recent case where more than £3 million was given by the Department of Transport under section 8 to enable freight facilities to be installed, resulting in 1,000 lorry journeys a day of roadstone being kept off the roads. Since 1979, there have been 127 projects resulting in 2 million journeys being taken off the roads. I am sure that hon. Members with interest in the environment will welcome that news.
    I shall write to the hon. Member for Shettleston on his point about taxis which, I think, can be satisfactorily resolved.
    Several hon. Members have referred to bus deregulation. Although there was a temporary hiatus at the beginning, there is now broadly the same level of service in rural areas; bus mileage has increased by more than 10 per cent. and more than £40 million has been saved for hard-pressed ratepayers as a result of deregulation. The productivity of operators has increased and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stretford will be delighted that in Greater Manchester the bus company's operating costs per mile are down 23 per cent. Bus miles are up 17 per cent. and costs are down by 13·5 per cent. over all. Innovation has been the biggest single result of deregulation. New ways are being found of providing customers with what they want. I cite as an example the 250 minibus services that are now operating up and down the country.
    1008
    Countless villages now have bus services when they did riot have them before. The other day I was sent a cutting entitled "It's the bus—after 33 years". There are dozens of other examples.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Where are they?
    Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman looked out of the window while the train taking him to his constituency was passing through Hemel Hempstead he would see other new bus services serving local hospitals which did not have services before. Scores of estates throughout the country now have bus services that did not have them before. [Interruption.] Hon. Members' constituents have reason to be glad that the buses have been deregulated and that passengers have turned into customers who are given care and attention by those who operate the services.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made a thoughtful speech in which he drew attention to the need for longer-term future planning on roads. The Department plans roads on the basis of traffic flows 15 years after opening. My hon. Friend said that traffic forecasts exceeded high growth figures. I assure him that the figures are rebased every year so that the actual increase since the latest national road traffic forecast in 1984 has been taken into account in assessing future traffic flows. The money for national roads was halved in real terms under the Labour Government. Under the Conservative Government it has been increased by 30 per cent. in real terms. That is a substantial increase.
    Good transport is an important component in the quality of life of our fellow citizens; for our manufacturers and business men it is essential to success. I have not sought to disparage the record of the Opposition when they were in government. However, it can be demonstrated that in every key area transport has improved and continues to improve under this Government. The amount spent on the national roads programme is up by 30 per cent. in real terms. Investment in regional airports has increased 10 times since the Government came to office.
    British Rail has invested more than £3 billion since 1979 and no investment proposition has been rejected. Today we announced that up to 204 Super Sprinters have been sanctioned. Investment in electrification has soared from £41 million a year under Labour to £72 million a year in real terms under this Government. The National Bus Company which was a Whitehall-controlled nationalised giant is passing into the hands of a spread of local owners and operators. Nothing has given me more pleasure than to help to remove power, wealth and decision-making from the state and see it spread out throughout the community. The business is now run by owner-managers and worker-shareholders. This is modern Conservatism in practice, spreading power and wealth throughout the community rather than concentrating it in the hands of the state, and I am proud to have been involved in that process. Indeed, I hope to announce another sale tomorrow.
    Bus deregulation was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition because it extended choice and competition. Choice and competition are the enemies of Socialism and the best possible friends of the customer and the consumer. I ask hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to support the policies that are proving to he successful and in the national interest.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 293.

    Division No. 71]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Foulkes, George

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Allen, Graham

    Galloway, George

    Anderson, Donald

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    George, Bruce

    Ashton, Joe

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Barron, Kevin

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Battle, John

    Gould, Bryan

    Beckett, Margaret

    Graham, Thomas

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Grocott, Bruce

    Boateng, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Boyes, Roland

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Bradley, Keith

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Henderson, Douglas

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Holland, Stuart

    Buchan, Norman

    Home Robertson, John

    Buckley, George

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Clay, Bob

    Illsley, Eric

    Clelland, David

    Ingram, Adam

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Cohen, Harry

    John, Brynmor

    Coleman, Donald

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cousins, Jim

    Lambie, David

    Cox, Tom

    Lamond, James

    Crowther, Stan

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cryer, Bob

    Leighton, Ron

    Cummings, J.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Litherland, Robert

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Darling, Alastair

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Loyden, Eddie

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

    McAllion, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McAvoy, Tom

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Dobson, Frank

    Macdonald, Calum

    Doran, Frank

    McFall, John

    Douglas, Dick

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McKelvey, William

    Dunnachie, James

    McLeish, Henry

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    McNamara, Kevin

    Eadie, Alexander

    McTaggart, Bob

    Eastham, Ken

    Madden, Max

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Faulds, Andrew

    Maxton, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Meacher, Michael

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

    Meale, Alan

    Fisher, Mark

    Michael, Alun

    Flannery, Martin

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Flynn, Paul

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Foster, Derek

    Morgan, Rhodri

    1010

    Morley, Elliott

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Short, Clare

    Mullin, Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    Murphy, Paul

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

    O'Brien, William

    Soley, Clive

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Spearing, Nigel

    Patchett, Terry

    Strang, Gavin

    Pendry, Tom

    Straw, Jack

    Pike, Peter

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Prescott, John

    Turner, Dennis

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Vaz, Keith

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wall, Pat

    Radice, Giles

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Randall, Stuart

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Redmond, Martin

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Reid, John

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wilson, Brian

    Robertson, George

    Winnick, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Rogers, Allan

    Worthington, Anthony

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wray, James

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Alexander, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Allason, Rupert

    Butcher, John

    Amess, David

    Butler, Chris

    Amos, Alan

    Butterfill, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ashby, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Cash, William

    Atkins, Robert

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkinson, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Chope, Christopher

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baldry, Tony

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Colvin, Michael

    Beith, A. J.

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cope, John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Couchman, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Curry, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dicks, Terry

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowis, John

    Dover, Den

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dunn, Bob

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Durant, Tony

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Eggar, Tim

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Fallon, Michael

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

    Farr, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Favell, Tony

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    1011

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Knowles, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Knox, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lang, Ian

    Forth, Eric

    Latham, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Franks, Cecil

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Freeman, Roger

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    French, Douglas

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fry, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gardiner, George

    Lilley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Livsey, Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lord, Michael

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Alastair

    McCrindle, Robert

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gorst, John

    Maclean, David

    Gow, Ian

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Madel, David

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gregory, Conal

    Malins, Humfrey

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mans, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maples, John

    Grist, Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Ground, Patrick

    Marlow, Tony

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mates, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hannam, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Harris, David

    Miller, Hal

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mills, Iain

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hayward, Robert

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heddle, John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Needham, Richard

    Hill, James

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Neubert, Michael

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Holt, Richard

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Cranley

    Howard, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Page, Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Howells, Geraint

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Irvine, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Irving, Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jack, Michael

    Price, Sir David

    Jackson, Robert

    Raffan, Keith

    Janman, Timothy

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Jessel, Toby

    Rathbone, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Redwood, John

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Renton, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Kennedy, Charles

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Key, Robert

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Knapman, Roger

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    1012

    Rost, Peter

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Rowe, Andrew

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Ryder, Richard

    Steen, Anthony

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Summerson, Hugo

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wallace, James

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Speed, Keith

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 186.

    Division No. 72]

    [10–14 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Cash, William

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Allason, Rupert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Amess, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Amos, Alan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclifie)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Ashby, David

    Cope, John

    Atkins, Robert

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, David

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Curry, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Day, Stephen

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Devlin, Tim

    Bellingham, Henry

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Benyon, W.

    Dover, Den

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Dunn, Bob

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Durant, Tony

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Eggar, Tim

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evennett, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Farr, Sir John

    Bottomley, Peter

    Favell, Tony

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Bowis, John

    Forman, Nigel

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Forth, Eric

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bright, Graham

    Franks, Cecil

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Freeman, Roger

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

    French, Douglas

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fry, Peter

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Gardiner, George

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Burt, Alistair

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Butcher, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Butler, Chris

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butterfill, John

    Gorst, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gow, Ian

    1013

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gregory, Conal

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Grist, Ian

    Miller, Hal

    Ground, Patrick

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hannam, John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Harris, David

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Needham, Richard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Neubert, Michael

    Hayward, Robert

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Heddle, John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Page, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Paice, James

    Hind, Kenneth

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Holt, Richard

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Howard, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

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

    Portillo, Michael

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Price, Sir David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Raffan, Keith

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Redwood, John

    Irvine, Michael

    Renton, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jackson, Robert

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Janman, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Jessel, Toby

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Key, Robert

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Ryder, Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Knowles, Michael

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knox, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Latham, Michael

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sims, Roger

    Lilley, Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Speed, Keith

    McCrindle, Robert

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Maclean, David

    Steen, Anthony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Madel, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Malins, Humfrey

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mans, Keith

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Marland, Paul

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Marlow, Tony

    Watts, John

    1014

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    George, Bruce

    Allen, Graham

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Anderson, Donald

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Graham, Thomas

    Ashton, Joe

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Barron, Kevin

    Hardy, Peter

    Battle, John

    Haynes, Frank

    Beckett, Margaret

    Henderson, Douglas

    Beith, A. J.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Holland, Stuart

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

    Home Robertson, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Boateng, Paul

    Howells, Geraint

    Boyes, Roland

    Hoyle, Doug

    Bradley, Keith

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Illsley, Eric

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ingram, Adam

    Buchan, Norman

    Janner, Greville

    Buckley, George

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Caborn, Richard

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Canavan, Dennis

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Clay, Bob

    Litherland, Robert

    Clelland, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Livsey, Richard

    Cohen, Harry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Corbett, Robin

    McAllion, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    McAvoy, Tom

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Cox, Tom

    Macdonald, Calum

    Crowther, Stan

    McFall, John

    Cryer, Bob

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Cummings, J.

    McKelvey, William

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McLeish, Henry

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McTaggart, Bob

    Darling, Alastair

    Madden, Max

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dewar, Donald

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Dixon, Don

    Martlew, Eric

    Dobson, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Doran, Frank

    Meacher, Michael

    Douglas, Dick

    Meale, Alan

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Michael, Alun

    Dunnachie, James

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Eastham, Ken

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Morley, Elliott

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mullin, Chris

    Fearn, Ronald

    Murphy, Paul

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

    Nellist, Dave

    Fisher, Mark

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Flannery, Martin

    O'Brien, William

    Flynn, Paul

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Foster, Derek

    Patchett, Terry

    Foulkes, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Pike, Peter

    Galloway, George

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    1015

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Straw, Jack

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Redmond, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Reid, John

    Turner, Dennis

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Vaz, Keith

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wall, Pat

    Robertson, George

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rogers, Allan

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Wilson, Brian

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winnick, David

    Short, Clare

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wray, James

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

    Soley, Clive

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on the success of transport policies which have led to an improved transport infrastructure through increased investment whilst reducing the proportion of gross domestic product taken up by public expenditure, which have provided better value for money for taxpayers, ratepayers and industry, and which have increased choice of service to the customer; and furthermore notes with approval the Government's policies to safeguard the environment and to maintain and improve transport safety standards.

    Mr. Frank Larsen
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning a matter of some urgency and importance. This afternoon, the divisional court ruled on the deportation of Frank Larsen, who was one of the four defendants in the Lambeth case, which came before the House in the form of points of order and a statement from the Attorney-General last month. At that time, he was ordered to be deported, and the learned judge sitting on that occasion said that some time should be given to Mr. Larsen in which to choose when he was to go. It now turns out that he is to be moved to the Queen's building at Heathrow at 8 am tomorrow and deported at 2 pm, which is before the House sits again.
    The Home Secretary should be summoned to the House tonight to make a statement on why there is this unseemly haste in the deportation. Could it possibly be that Mr. Larsen has a number of matters in his knowledge and possession that would be somewhat damaging and dangerous if revealed? Could it be that someone is trying to obscure the fact that he was not prosecuted for forgery of certain documents, for example, or for being in receipt of certain classified information — for example, Operation Layout—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot possibly answer questions such as that. What is the point of order for me, please?
    Mr. Bermingham: My point of order is that, before the House sits again, someone is to be removed from this country in respect of whom a considerable number of important and relevant questions must be asked and about whom the Attorney-General made a statement last month. All I wish to do is to request you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Home Secretary to come before the House and explain why Mr. Larsen is to be deported with such speed, the learned judge's comments notwithstanding.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for me. Undoubtedly the Government Front Bench will have heard what has been said.
    Mr. Peter Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has a problem of the sort that you may think occurs from time to time. The House can express a view or even ask a question only if the process is initiated in some way. For example, it can be initiated by a ministerial statement. If that does not happen, it is normally open to hon. Members to initiate the process in some other way.
    In this case the vital decision will be taken tomorrow and the House will have no opportunity to initiate the process until the horse has escaped. You may think, Mr. Speaker, that that is likely to bring the House into disrepute. Normally the House would not seek to review an executive decision by the Home Secretary, but here there is some reason or some allegation that what is in issue is not the public interest, but the political interest of the Government. Therefore, you may think that the House is in a difficulty, and I respectfully invite you to advise the House on how it can proceed.
    Mr. Speaker: The only advice that I can give the House is that the Leader of the House is present and will have heard these comments. I cannot answer this question, but I can tell the House that we now have the timed business

    1017
    of a prayer and that we should get on with it. The debate on the prayer must end at 11.30, and these points of order take time from the debate.
    Mr. Richard Caborn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you well know, you and I have had correspondence on this issue about this person, and you were kind enough to call me at Prime Minister's Question Time when the matter was raised. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not said that.
    Mr. Caborn: A number of court cases are now taking place and the person who is to be deported, or who may be deported, before the House meets again is a major actor on that stage. Many serious questions have been raised
    1018
    and we are asking for your guidance about how we can prevail upon the Executive not to deport this person until the issue can be debated, because there are major political implications in the case.
    Mr. Speaker: Again, the only advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is what I have already said. It is a matter not for me but for the Government, who will undoubtedly have heard what has been said.
    Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Leader of the House is present and heard your earlier comments, perhaps he will respond to the anxiety of my hon. Friend and say whether between now and 11.30 he will consult the Home Secretary to see whether a statement may be made.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment will undoubtedly have been heard. This is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels, if at all. We should now get on with the prayer.

    Further Education
    10.33 pm
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Governing Bodies of Institutions of Further Education) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1160), dated 2nd July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th July, be annulled.
    This order takes back more than 20 years of students' rights to participate in governing bodies. In many respects, it would have been much more appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to lead in this debate, because I am sure that all hon. Members will recall that in the days when he was president of the National Union of Students he was instrumental in pushing forward students' rights and the ability to participate in governing bodies.
    At a stroke, with these regulations, the Government will revoke those rights and push students back to a position that pre-dates the mid-1960s. The regulations come from the Education Act 1986 and arise from a problem that the Government feel they have in dealing with under-age governors. As I understand the Government's position, the rationale is that they feel that it is necessary by law to exclude governors under the age of 18 from participating in discussion and voting on certain decisions. The Government argue that people under the age of 18 cannot enter into contracts. Therefore, it follows from the Government's logic—as I understand it—that governing bodies containing youngsters under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. Can the Minister tell us why that is the case?
    It seems that there are procedures whereby it may be possible for youngsters to continue to participate, and even to vote, without the need for these regulations. If the Government say that the contract is made severally by each individual governor, that is understandable. But if the Government say that the contract is made collectively, is it possible to have a vote whereby the first decision is confirmed by the governors and then the governors collectively become responsible so that youngsters under the age of 18 can participate? The Government need to answer that point.
    The Government also need to deal with the much greater powers in the regulations to exclude all student governors, regardless of whether they are under or over the age of 18. One of the more distressing aspects is that the Government have not even bothered to consult the National Union of Students about how the regulations should work. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) feels that that is a normal process. Of course, we know that, with his politics, he would not consult anybody ; he would simply take decisions.
    Can the Minister tell us why the Government have not consulted the National Union of Students? I suspect that they have not even bothered to consult polytechnic directors, principals of further education colleges or directors of education authorities. But those individuals and bodies will have the responsibility for implementing the regulations. Why has there been no consultation?
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The lack of consultation is a continuation of what happened
    1020
    when Parliament was in recess and schools were on holiday. There was no consultation with all the people who should be concerned with legislation on education. The Government are casual about consultation with students, but these are elected people on the campus. If they are not consulted they will find ways of making their presence felt. There is a democratic process for consultation. Those who are against that process are asking for demonstrations and so on by adopting that attitude.
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right. If people are not given an opportunity to participate they will seek other ways of influencing decisions. My hon. Friend is also right in his assertion that it is typical of the Government that they do not bother to consult. We have seen that with the general education proposals. Sadly, we see it with these regulations.
    The Government are dealing not simply with student governors under the age of 18; they have extended the regulations to cover student governors over the age of 18. It is worthwhile reading regulation 4, under which the Government restrict student governors to such an extent that it is almost impossible to envisage that they can play anything but a second-class role in governing bodies. The first condition that the Government impose is that any student governor, regardless of age, must leave the meeting when it is discussing staffing if another member of the governing body so proposes. That immediately limits the ability of students to participate.
    The Government go further. Even if no one proposes that he leave, the student governor must not participate in or vote on any discussion. So, even if no one proposes that the student governor should leave the meeting, he will not be entitled to vote on or to participate in any discussion. Just in case they have left a loophole in the process, the regulations say that if no college regulations exist either way, it should be taken that the student governor should withdraw. If a person is not caught by condition one and somehow survives condition two, condition three will catch him.
    But the Government, true to their nature, are not happy with conditions one, two and three. They have introduced a fourth condition, just in case there is a loophole. Regulation 4(4) concludes by saying that a college can add further restrictions, whatever their nature, if it so wishes.
    The Government have given no justification for such restrictions on student governors. We look forward to hearing from the Minister. I have looked to see whether any press releases have come from Elizabeth house to tell us what justification there is for such regulations, but so far there has been none. Student governors are simply to be excluded.
    The Government say that student governors can participate, like any other governor, as long as the decisions do not concern staff and finance. I have spent a lot of time trying to see what decisions of any merit or substance will not have staffing or financial implications. I am prepared to give way to any Conservative Member who can come forward with an example that would fall outside those categories. I do not see any volunteers, but I see many Conservative Members thinking hard for an example. But, of course, they are the supporters of the legislation. All that they want to do is effectively exclude student governors from all participation in governing

    1021
    bodies. In reality, one can hardly think of a decision of merit or substance that will not fall within staffing or finance.
    Why the change? We wait to hear the Minister. There is no justification in argument so far, and there is no justification in practice either. Many institutions in Britain allow students to participate in those decisions. I do not believe that a queue of polytechnic directors or further education principals has been knocking on the door of the Department of Education and Science to say that they want to get rid of their student governors. Perhaps the Minister will tell us of those who have made that point. I suspect that they may knock on the door of Elizabeth house for other reasons, but not necessarily to get rid of student governors.
    If we want a practical example we can look at Leeds polytechnic, in my constituency. That is a good polytechnic where the practice of student governors has continued for a number of years without difficulty or complaint. The director supports the practice. The students union is desperately worried about why it is to excluded from the process of government. Why change arrangements that have worked for many years?
    The result of the regulations is that we shall simply turn students into second-class citizens. They will be asked to keep quiet. The educational and political argument for student governors and participation has always been based on three premises. First, it is good in educational terms that students should have the right to participate in the decisions that affect their institutions. Secondly, it is good that it provides practice in responsibility and citizenship. What sort of practice and responsibility will people gain from provisions that say that they cannot participate in the vast majority of important decisions? Thirdly—this is an argument that ran for a long time in the 1960s and 1970s and is still relevant—the process of student participation provides good management and good practice for the institution. That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Without that involvement students will not feel that it is their institution and that they have the right to influence it.
    The Government have turned against good practice and principles that have been established and have run for many years. They have done so without justification, but with the clear result that students will be turned into second-class citizens. We see no reason or justification for that, and that is why we shall be voting against the regulations tonight. The Labour party, above all other political parties, believes in democracy and participation and in allowing our young people the full rights of citizenship.
    10.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Of the regulations before us tonight, regulations 1 and 2 are routine. Regulation 3 is an extension of the principle of open government, requiring agendas, minutes and other papers—[Interruption.] It is clear from the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that he has not understood the regulations, so he should listen carefully as I lead him through them.
    1022
    Regulation 3 requires agendas, minutes and other papers considered by governing bodies to be available at the institution for inspection by anyone who wishes to see them. The only papers excluded from that requirement are those that name individual students or teachers, or are otherwise confidential. Similar arrangements relating to the papers of school governing bodies have been in force since 1981. We are now extending them to further education institutions. The system has worked well with schools. Governing bodies rely for their vitality on the support and interest of the communities that they serve, and I am sure that the House will support the principle that their proceedings should be open to those communities. I want to stress that element of the regulations.
    Regulation 4 is the one on which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central has concentrated his fire. It contains provisions restricting the participation of student governors in the discussion of certain topics connected with finance and staffing. Let me emphasise, as the hon. Gentleman has clearly misunderstood the regulations, that student governors will have full rights of participation in the discussion of any other matter. We have confined the restrictions to instances in which they are reasonable and necessary, as I propose to show. The Government have no wish to diminish the role that student governors can play in the great bulk of the business with which governing bodies have to deal.
    Regulation 4(2) prevents governors under the age of 18 from voting — I emphasise the word "voting" — on proposals concerning the expenditure of money by the governing body, or on proposals under which the governing body or any members of it would enter into any contract, or would incur any debt or liabilities. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has asked why we are doing that. As a matter of law, minors cannot normally enter into binding contracts. We believe, therefore, that their votes should not count when matters of expenditure, contract, debt or liability are at issue. However, there is nothing in the regulations to prevent student governors under the age of 18 from participating in discussion of such matters. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. And, of course, student governors over the age of 18 will have full rights. That seems eminently reasonable to me.
    Regulation 4(3) is the one that has incurred the hon. Gentleman's particular ire. It restricts the participation of all student governors in meetings of the governing body at which the item under discussion—the hon. Member for Leeds, Central should listen carefully, as this is a crucial point which he has misunderstood — relates to the appointment, remuneration, conditions of service, promotion, suspension, dismissal or retirement of an individual member or prospective member of staff. If the instrument of government permits any one member of the governing body to require the withdrawal of a student governor from the discussion of those topics, and if such a request is made, he must withdraw.
    If the governors have that right but none exercise it, the student may stay to hear the discussion, but may not speak or vote. In the absence of such a provision, which it is open to the institution to make, the student must withdraw from any discussion of those topics.
    We recognise, just as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central does, the value of student participation in governing bodies. Like him, we believe that it is of benefit

    1023
    both to the institution, by directly involving the students, and to the students themselves, for whom it is good training. But there is an overriding principle— that of confidentiality, and, it might almost be said, of natural justice. Staff responsible for the teaching, assessment and examination of students would be put in an invidious position if those same students were able to speak, and even to vote, on matters concerning the conditions of service, promotion, suspension or dismissal of those individual members of staff.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The previous regulations allowed students to participate in financial matters and in debates on all subjects. Can the Minister give us one example of a college that has been drawn to his attention where there has been a major problem? When we debated the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, from which the regulations come, nobody showed us any examples of problems that existed.
    Mr. Jackson: It is important to clarify the position and to establish it firmly in the instruments of government. Those points were made and they were accepted in the debates that took place here and in another place when the policy that underlies these regulations was debated in 1986. Several noble Lords and the former hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, Mr. Freud spoke from their experience of the higher education world and testified to the normality of the sort of restriction envisaged in the regulations. Therefore, I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that the regulations will put back the clock. They will merely consolidate the existing position.
    Mr. Fatchett rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has the Floor.
    Mr. Jackson: The principle of the withdrawal of institutional governors during the discussion of staffing matters is not new, nor is it confined to students. The instruments of government of most polytechnics and colleges already provide in some way for the withdrawal of student governors in such circumstances, and they also commonly require staff governors to withdraw from governing body discussions about the appointment, promotion, suspension, dismissal or retirement of a member of staff—
    Mr. Fatchett rose—
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should listen to my point.
    As I have said, they often require staff governors to withdraw when there is a discussion relating to a member of staff in a post that is senior or equal to that of a staff governor. There is nothing new there. The restriction on the participation of staff governors is not regarded as contentious. Nobody complains about that. There are no claims that they are not able to take a proper role in governing bodies because of that restriction, and I believe that the same is true of the restriction on the participation of student governors.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose—
    Mr. Jackson: I emphasise that the regulations do not prevent student governors from playing a full part in discussions about staffing levels in general.
    Mr. Fatchett rose—
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying rather than seek to interrupt me. At no stage has the hon. Gentleman understood the central purpose of the regulations. The basic point is that students will be able to participate in discussions of a general character about staffing matters, closures and reorganisations of departments. The restriction applies only to personal matters involving individual named members of staff such as I have described. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central was confusing those points out of either malice — I had better not accuse him of that — or a simple misunderstanding. It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to seek to say that this limited restriction makes students second-class citizens. He does no service to the cause of student governors to make that point.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance to make his speech. Let me make mine.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central alleged that there was inadequate consultation before the regulations were made. He made much of that, but he will not let me deal with it. The regulations were shown in draft to the local authority associations, which had no observations on them. We did not consult more widely because the regulations had been debated during the passage of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. We believed them to be based on accepted principles. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) who was the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science when the matter was going through the House.
    The regulations apply only to maintained further education institutions. They form part of the present scheme of governance of those institutions as required by the Education (No. 2) Act 1968.
    The forthcoming legislation to reform education will reconstitute the polytechnics and colleges. The governing bodies will have a central role. They will have much more responsibility. The institutions will have to make new articles of government which will require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We will be looking carefully to see whether it would be appropriate to apply to the new sector of higher education provisions similar to those in the regulations now before the House. We shall be consulting widely about that at the appropriate time. We shall take careful account of the points made in tonight's debate when we draw up those regulations.
    I believe that the regulations are well founded and I ask the House to reject the prayer for their annulment.
    10.54 pm
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will note and recall that the Minister refused to give way on a number of perfectly legitimate questions on which we sought clarification, and to which the Minister might have provided an answer in the middle of his speech. However, knowing the way in which Front-Bench Members of this Government behave, I have no confidence that, if I were to ask a question now, it would be answered at the end of the debate.
    I shall ask the questions that I was hoping to ask but it will not pass the notice of the House that the Minister once again refused to give way to several legitimate

    1025
    interventions. That characterises the attitude that he has taken over the regulations whenever he has been questioned about them, whether by the National Union of Students or any other body. It is indicative of the arrogance and lack of consultation that has characterised the way in which the Government have pushed through their so-called consultation paper. —[Interruption.] No doubt those Conservative Members who are sniggering are among those who would regard this as a matter of not very great importance. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a limited amount of time and the more that Conservative Members interrupt me — [Interruption]—Conservative Members are causing me to spend longer making my speech than I otherwise might. If I were to be given a modicum of silence, I might be able to get through my speech and they might have the chance to make their speeches.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that he wished that his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had been making the speech. I rather wish that my predecessor, Clement Freud, had been making this speech because he moved for the representation of student governors.
    The issue of consultation is important. It strikes at the heart of the representation of student governors on governing bodies. As the Minister suggested, it may be that some governing bodies follow a practice similar to that which he is proposing in this legislation. However, there is a great deal of difference between a governing body taking decisions which it thinks are appropriate to its institution and the Minister enshrining the legislation in such a way that it could be changed only by Parliament. He knows that there is a great deal of difference there, and it is typical of the centralisation that the Government have sought to impose that he will not leave such decisions to governing bodies, but will prescribe and dictate what will happen from the centre. Moreover he does so without any consultation with those affected.
    The question that I was going to ask the Minister, and which perhaps the Minister who replies will be kind enough to answer, is: how many requests—I should like a precise figure — has he received from directors of polytechnics or governing bodies to have the legislation that he is proposing put into practice? If there were a case for student governors not having access to information about, for example, staff appointments, one would assume that the directors of polytechnics would be the first to make it. I believe that there has probably been none, but, if there have been any, I shall be interested to hear of them. How many requests for such legislation have the Government received? It is on the answer to that question that many of us will be able to judge the Government's attitude to this matter.
    I am not opposed to parts of the legislation. For example, the part that requires documents to be placed in the public domain is probably to be welcomed. In so far as that contributes to some kind of open government, it is welcome to us. However, I differ with the Minister on his remarks about any matter which is of a confidential nature. That is not exactly what the regulations state. They refer to
    "any matter which,. … the governing body are satisfied should be dealt with on a confidential basis."
    1026
    That is very different, given the fact that the majority of those on governing bodies are, in effect, to be the Secretary of State's nominees. That definition is far too broad and open to abuse in a way that will perhaps diminish further the rights of student governors.
    As the Minister said, the main question is whether student governors should from time to time and for one reason or another be excluded. I do not question the idea that one might wish to exclude student governors under 18 from voting on decisions which have financial implica-tions. The suggestions on that point of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central were interesting though complex, and, while I am not sure I could go along with his proposals, they are worth considering.
    The Minister said that student governors could be excluded in relation to the conditions of service, promotion, suspension, dismissal or retirement of a named member, but that is not what the instrument says. It refers simply to "a member", not "an individual member" or "a named member".
    When one thinks of the Government's education proposals that will soon be placed before the House, one must conclude that scarcely one of them relating to higher or further education will not involve, in general, matters relating to the engagement, retirement, dismissal or conditions of service of employees. If that is a general catch-all provision, we are right to oppose it. If, on the other hand, the Minister is amending that—in view of his remarks tonight — and is saying that these conditions, when enacted, can require a student governor to withdraw only in the case of a named individual member of staff, we would regard that as a matter of a profoundly different nature. The Minister's comments on that when he replies to the debate will determine the attitude of many of us.
    The present wording of the proposals represents a catch-all provision which will cause student governors to be removed and their legitimate opinions to be isolated and not heard on all matters of importance that are likely to be considered by governing bodies in the forthcoming discussions on the Education Bill—a measure which will change fundamentally further and higher education in this country.
    It will be noted outside the House that the Government are now seeking to act to remove the only representatives on governing bodies who are elected, remembering that all the others are appointed — and appointed by the Secretary of State. The only representatives on governing bodies who are accountable to and have the mandate of an electorate are those whose powers the Government now seek to diminish. Once again the Government are acting against the individual's exercise of democracy.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that a student in his last term should take part in deciding whether a member of staff should be sacked?
    Mr. Ashdown: That is the type of decision that can be taken by the governing body concerned. If that body, as a majority, decides that a student should not be present, so be it, and that is the position now. I see no reason for legislation on that, I see no reason why such a decision should not be taken by the governing body and I see no reason why a student governor, under those or any other

    1027
    circumstances, should be prevented from giving his views on the basis of one, perhaps capricious, objection. I see no fairness, justice or reason in such a step.
    As usual, whenever there is a chance to diminish individual rights, the Government take it ; whenever there is a chance to go backwards and be regressive, the Government take it ; and whenever there is a chance to diminish the capacity for consultation and partnership, the Government take it. The Government claim that this is all being done in the name of freedom. In fact, this is a mean and petty-minded measure which will damage student participation, cause students sometimes to take their grievances out of governing bodies and take them elsewhere into the campus, with damaging consequences, and do neither education nor the Government any good.
    11.4 pm
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: The regulations are something of a curate's egg. There are parts that I commend, parts that I do not particularly commend but recognise that the Government have little choice but to accept as being forced upon them by the legal position, and parts that I dislike intensely. I am much in favour of the regulations that ensure that, so far as is reasonable, there shall be a full flow of information about what is happening within educational institutions to those inside and outside educational institutions who, for legitimate reasons, may need to know.
    I am concerned also, as other hon. Members have been, about the way in which the regulations deal with governors. We are creating not two but three classes of governors. There will be those who are appointed to a governing body with full powers, those over the age of 18, who are elected as student governors but will be restricted and forced to withdraw when certain matters are discussed, and those who, because they are under 18, will he prevented from voting on key financial issues. The Minister may have cast his eye over the correspondence that I had with his predecessors at the time of the last education legislation dealing with the issue.
    In the case of polytechnics, the problem regarding the age of student governors is not too serious. Students enrol at the age of 18, so all student governors will fall into the second category. However, in colleges of further education and technical colleges, many students are under the age of 18. If they are to participate at all, they will fall into the third category — that is, the group who will have the least right to express their views in the governing body. I fear that the result of that will be that many potential student governors will say, "I shall not take part. If I am not to be a real governor, I do not want to be some kind of token." We have had too much tokenism, and we do not want it in that regard. It will also mean that it will be difficult for student bodies in colleges of further education, in which the bulk of students are below the age of 18, to be properly represented.
    We must also remember—this point has not yet been made—that student governors over the age of 18 might well be extremely responsible, mature students. They may he older than other members of a governing body. For example, I find it difficult to understand why a man with a career who goes back later in life to serve as a governor at the same time as being a polytechnic student, should be restricted as though, in some way, he is immature or likely to be irresponsible with the information that he obtains.
    1028
    I presume that the regulations will be adopted, but the Minister should take on board the fact that it is not only the National Union of Students that is unhappy. The strongest representations have been made to me by the chairman of governors of a college of technology in the midlands. He made these points and asked that they be drawn to the attention of the House. It is not only students who are complaining but those who want to see their college communities represented on governing bodies. If we suggest to students that, in some way, they are to be second or third-class governors, they will not consider themselves to be part of the college community in the fullest sense. That is the tragedy of the regulations.
    11.8 pm
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made a thoughtful contribution, and I hope that the Minister will examine it.
    The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) deplored the fact that the Minister would not give way to any hon. Member. The answer is obvious. The Minister is unsure of himself. He just does not know the regulations, and nor do many Conservative Members. The Minister has not read them. For instance, he missed one of the most fundamental points and referred to three other points.
    Regulation 4(1) provides that under certain conditions restrictions can be prescribed. Paragraph (3) gives the conditions under which a student can be removed. Regulation 4(4) states:
    "The instrument of government for a relevant institution may contain provisions specifying restrictions on the participation of student governors in the proceedings of the governing body of the institution additional to those imposed by paragraphs (2) and (3) above."
    There is a catch-all regulation that has been noticed by the National Union of Students, which, like every other organisation, has its lawyers who have gone through the regulations. The NUS, having given all the points that are relevant to what is happening to the students and having pointed out that democracy was being stifled, put it neatly when it said:
    "NUS is obviously worried that if students are excluded from the legitimate decision-making structure of the college, they may choose other, less constructive, mechanisms of ensuring their voice is heard."
    That is what it is being invited to do, because democracy functions at that level. The NUS said about regulation 4(4):
    "Furthermore, the regulations contain an additional clause for governing bodies to introduce additional restrictions on student representation as they see fit."
    That is a catch-all regulation that will totally undermine student representation. Having set out in the regulations those reasons, some silly and some specious, one says to oneself, "Why in heaven's name do they do this?" The hon. Member for Yeovil touched on that when he said, "Why do things that take us way, way back and replace procedures that have been tested previously and have been proved to be workable?" Such conduct only enrages those honourable people who are elected students. Many of the governors are not elected. It is wrong to take such draconian measures and then say at the end in the most insulting manner, "If we have not got you out, there are additional catch-all provisions under which you will he got out." The Government ought to look at such a draconian measure because it is not on.
    11.12 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) overstated his case. I listened to what he said and I assumed that he was quoting from an NUS document when he said that there was a possibility of students adopting a less constructive method of participation. I hope that that will not be the case, because students will be in a stronger position than has been implied in the debate. I thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) over-egged the pudding when he said that we were returning students to the mid-1950s. In the mid-1950s, the powers of students were minimal and I do not think that we are going down anything like that road.
    We are invited this evening to pray against the statutory instrument, but if we do we will vote against the publication of minutes and papers as set out in regulation (3) — the agenda, the draft minutes, any report, documents and other papers considered at such meetings. It is to be regretted that we are being invited to vote against those entirely worthwhile provisions. If we vote down the prayer, it will be a vote against openness. While glasnost might be popular in the Soviet Union, it does not seem to be popular on the Opposition Benches.
    Regulation 4(3) excited the attention of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), he raised the matter of the names of individuals. Paragraph 4(3) states:
    "the subject of discussion is the appointment, remuneration, conditions of service, promotion, suspension, dismissal or retirement of a member or prospective member of the staff".
    That seems to get down to the individual and that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. If he requires further clarification, my hon. Friend the Minister may say a word or two about that when he replies.
    I believe that we have returned to the individual and specific case. Paragraph 4(3) restricts the participation of the student governor only when we are referring to specifics. Members of staff have a right to confidentiality when discussing their particular and specific pay and conditions, just as much as anyone else.
    Student governors will still be able to play a major part in a wide range of other matters. For example, they will be able to participate in discussions on staffing levels and the reorganisation of departments. I stress that point to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. Students will have a major part to play in the running of their institutions. That is why I believe that the hon. Member for Hillsborough was wrong to say that it is necessary for students to look for other methods of participation.
    Paragraph 4(2) is fair since, whether or not those under 18 are students, they are unable to enter into legal and binding agreements that are enforceable at law. Once we accept that, it is unreasonable that students should vote and commit governors on financial matters. Again, if the hon. Member for Leeds, Central feels that students should be allowed to speak and vote on financial matters as they affect governing bodies even though they are minors in law, why does he not go the whole hog and say that minors should be able to enter into legal and binding agreements enforceable at law? Clearly no one would argue for that and I have perhaps taken that case beyond its logical conclusion.
    The regulations are fair and I hope that the House will reject the Opposition prayer tonight.
    11.17 pm
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The logic of the regulations defies comprehension. The regulations are petty, and most of all they demonstrate a lamentable lack of knowledge on the Government's part of the good practice in institutions of further and higher education. They also show that the Government have no sensitivity and very little understanding of the process of education. To state that mature students and people who have been working and living within an institution should take part in all the decisions does not necessarily mean that they should have the majority. However, they should take part in the decisions and accept a level of responsibility; that is the essence of any educational and democratic process. Obviously the Minister is frightened of that.
    When the Minister suggests that the position with regard to staff governors is similar to that described in the regulations, that shows that he has not understood the regulations with respect to staff governors. They are not allowed to vote when they have a personal interest. In other words, they cannot vote when they may be promoted because of the advancement or demotion of another member of staff. Students are not in that position, and will not be in that position. Therefore, the only rationale that the Minister offered the House is bogus. He has demonstrated his lack of understanding of what has enabled those of us who have worked in higher and further education to develop good practice and take responsibility for the decisions in which students are involved.
    I ask the Minister to give us some rationale and to reconsider the matter. He has an opportunity to demonstrate that he understands these matters, and that he has some sympathy for the process. I hope that he changes his mind.
    11.19 pm
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Government and the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) chided us for not welcoming regulation 3, which led to this call for far more openness. One of our reasons for not doing so is that the provisions already exist in local government legislation. However, we are pleased that the provisions are included in these regulations, but that is about all that we can say for them.
    I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would be consulting widely with higher education institutions about students' representatives on governing bodies. It is odd that he is prepared to do that, yet he was not prepared to consult widely about regulations relating to the larger number of students in further education colleges.
    The Government have double-crossed students and the House. In the Education (No.2) Act 1986 the Government said that they wanted to remove student governors under the age of 18 from these bodies. Strong representations were made by students and hon. Members that that change was unnecessary. With the pressure of time in the House, the Government agreed to the concession to keep student governors under the age of 18 years on FE institutions. The Government's original intention of removing student governors under that age from these bodies will be implemented by the introduction of these mean regulations.
    In 1986 the Government could not and still cannot give any examples of how, over the past 20 years, the participation of student governors in these matters has led

    1031
    to any problems. No one can give an example of litigation against a college because of a problem about who took a decision within the governing body and whether it involved someone under the age of 18. I challenge the Minister to give us an example from the past 20 years. If he can, at least we will feel that he has a shred of evidence on his side: so far I cannot find any.
    I am worried that students may lose the opportunity to vote on financial matters. Further, I am concerned that the regulations appear to be misleading about staff. The Minister said that he was referring to individual staff, but that is not what the regulations say. I hope that he will clarify that point when he winds up the debate.
    I suspect that the regulations are not clear, because of a major problem. With regard to a particular contraction within a college or department, how do we know whether the individual is concerned as an individual or as the head of the department? It is extremely difficult to decide whether the regulations refer to the individual or the post that he occupies.
    The danger of these regulations is that student governors will feel that they are only on these bodies to choose the colour of the paint. Presumably, if the Conservative party had its way they would be able to choose any colour as long as it was blue.
    The regulations demonstrate the Government's fundamental attitude towards democracy — there is an election every four or five years and, as a result, the Government can exercise autocratic power. We argue that if one genuinely believes in democracy one must encourage people at all levels to participate. It is essential to have consensus about the running of colleges for students, staff and the local community. That consensus will be achieved by encouraging all concerned to participate as equals in the debate and argument on policy, not to offer one individual the chance to veto whether a student can even remain at a meeting, which seems to be weighting the balance of power within a governing body against students.
    Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that conflict may return to the student communities at colleges. Let us consider the record. In the period when students were not represented on governing bodies, there was far more conflict and student views were expressed as a result of sit-ins and other activities. As student representation on governing bodies was steadily increased such activities declined. Now, if one visits colleges, more often than not, principals make the point that the student representatives are vital to the government of colleges because they represent an extremely good way of passing on information and arriving at consensus with, and obtaining consent from, students.
    That good practice should not be ruined by the Government's doctrinaire attitude that one cannot trust students. I hope that the House will approve the prayer and that the Government will return with new regulations that will enable studens to continue to play a major, active role in the government of FE institutions.
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Jackson: This has been a lively and interesting debate. I believe that there has been an underlying current of agreement between all sides.
    The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has repeated the exaggerations and misrepresentations of his hon. Friend the Member for
    1032
    Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), whose remarks were designed to obscure the extent of agreement. When the hon. Member for Leeds, Central was speaking, I thought that we were faced with a genuine muddle rooted in intellectual confusion. However, from the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, it is clear that that muddle is deliberate and that it is rooted in the politics of opposition for opposition's sake.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) made a thoughtful and significant contribution to the debate. I must tell him that under-18s will be able to participate fully in the governing of further education colleges. The only restriction upon them is that they may not vote in those limited instances where a matter of contract, debt or liability is involved. My hon. Friend was concerned that they should be able to participate, and I repeat that nothing in the regulations will touch their right to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North also said — it was taken up by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West Ms. Armstrong) — that the student governors may be mature students, and, indeed, older than the staff. The point at issue is not the age of students, but their status in relation to members of staff. I believe that that represents perfectly reasonable grounds on which to proceed.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) complained about paragraph 4(4) which specifies that instruments of government may contain further restrictions beyond those that are envisaged or have been discussed. Opposition Members cannot say that this matter should be left to the institutions and their instruments of government and, at the same time, complain when provisions are made in legislation to enable them to do precisely that.
    Mr. Ashdown: It is forcing them.
    Mr. Jackson: On the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I must make a point of clarification. I used the word "individual" to make absolutely clear, by way of a gloss the meaning of the regulation which uses the singular article "a", as in "a member". My intention was simply to make clear—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made the same point and it is what the Opposition want to obscure and represents their muddle, exaggeration and misunderstanding — that the restriction we are talking about is a limited one designed to protect the individual rights of members of staff. Indeed, the hon. Member for Yeovil spoke about individual rights.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Jackson: I must press on, as this is a timed debate.
    The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked how many requests we had had from institutions. This is a matter of public knowledge and we had a debate about it in relation to the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.
    Let me remind hon. Members of the provision in the Act which states that the participation of any student of such an institution who is a member of the governing body may be excluded in certain circumstances. That was well known at the time, and the Opposition accepted that amendment to the Act without debate or division.
    It has been said that I have not spoken to students about this matter. I assure the hon. Member for Yeovil

    1033
    (Mr. Ashdown) that I have had extensive discussions with students in many institutions about it. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, in 1986, Mr. Clement Freud, whose absence the hon. Gentleman said he regretted—he may regret it more now—said:
    "When I was rector of Dundee university, students sat on the court of the university. They did not have a vote and, rightly, were not involved when we discussed staff misdemeanours or salaries." — [Official Report, 10 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 204.]
    So Mr. Freud was right, and the hon. Member for Yeovil is wrong. He should have studied the background to the debate before making his speech tonight.
    It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure) ).
    The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 200.

    Division No. 73]

    [11.30 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Fisher, Mark

    Allen, Graham

    Flannery, Martin

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Foster, Derek

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Foulkes, George

    Ashton, Joe

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Galloway, George

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    George, Bruce

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Battle, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Beckett, Margaret

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Beith, A. J.

    Gould, Bryan

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Boyes, Roland

    Hardy, Peter

    Bradley, Keith

    Henderson, Douglas

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Holland, Stuart

    Buchan, Norman

    Home Robertson, John

    Buckley, George

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Caborn, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Illsley, Eric

    Clay, Bob

    Ingram, Adam

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Janner, Greville

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Cousins, Jim

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cox, Tom

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Crowther, Stan

    Livsey, Richard

    Cryer, Bob

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Cummings, J.

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    McAllion, John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    McAvoy, Tom

    Darling, Alastair

    McCartney, Ian

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Macdonald, Calum

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

    McFall, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Dixon, Don

    McKelvey, William

    Dobson, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Doran, Frank

    Madden, Max

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dunnachie, James

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Eastham, Ken

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Martlew, Eric

    Fatchett, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    Meale, Alan

    Fearn, Ronald

    Michael, Alun

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    1034

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morley, Elliott

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

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Soley, Clive

    Mullin, Chris

    Spearing, Nigel

    Murphy, Paul

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Nellist, Dave

    Straw, Jack

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    O'Brien, William

    Vaz, Keith

    Patchett, Terry

    Wall, Pat

    Pendry, Tom

    Wallace, James

    Pike, Peter

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Wilson, Brian

    Redmond, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Robertson, George

    Wray, James

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Rowlands, Ted

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    Skinner, Dennis

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Allason, Rupert

    Dunn, Bob

    Amess, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Amos, Alan

    Eggar, Tim

    Arbuthnot, James

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evennett, David

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Fallon, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Farr, Sir John

    Atkins, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Atkinson, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baldry, Tony

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forth, Eric

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Franks, Cecil

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bowis, John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bright, Graham

    Gorst, John

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Gow, Ian

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

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gregory, Conal

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Burns, Simon

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Chris

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Holt, Richard

    Cope, John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cran, James

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

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Curry, David

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Irvine, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Jackson, Robert

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Janman, Timothy

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    1035

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Page, Richard

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Paice, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Knapman, Roger

    Patnick, Irvine

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Pawsey, James

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Knowles, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Latham, Michael

    Price, Sir David

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Raffan, Keith

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lightbown, David

    Redwood, John

    Lilley, Peter

    Renton, Tim

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Lord, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Maclean, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Mans. Keith

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Marlow, Tony

    Shersby, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sims, Roger

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Speed, Keith

    Miller, Hal

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Mills, Iain

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thurnham, Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Needham, Richard

    Tellers for the

    Nelson, Anthony

    Mr. Tony Durant and

    Neubert, Michael

    Mr. Richard Ryder

    Question accordingly negatived.

  PETITION

    Rating Reform
    11.40 pm
    Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of my constituents residing on the islands North Uist, South Uist and Benbecula. The petition protests against the proposed implementation of the community charge or poll tax, which is considered unfair, unjust and inequitable as it takes no account of the ability of citizens to pay. The petition also says that it will be inefficient and expensive to operate and will infringe the civil liberties of the people of the Uists and Benbecula.
    The petition concludes:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House repeal the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.
    I beg leave to present the petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Mr. Frank Larsen
    Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House whether you have been notified that it is the intention of the Home Secretary to make a statement about the case of Mr. Larsen? The matter was raised earlier by some of my hon. Friends. Since it appears that the person is due to be deported at 2 o'clock tomorrow, that will remove any opportunity for the House to ask questions about the motives and the accusations that have been made that Mr. Larsen has been in the employ of the South African Government. Clearly, the House needs to have a statement. Is it possible for you to find out whether the Home Secretary will make a statement tomorrow and whether Mr. Larsen will not be sent back until the House has at least had an opportunity to question the Home Secretary? This is a very important matter, and once again the House has been treated with disrespect.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): First, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's initial point. No, I have not been approached by the Home Secretary. Secondly, I re-emphasise what was said earlier by Mr. Speaker, that this is not a matter for the Chair. I understand the concern of hon. Members, but I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. Thirdly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the Chair cannot direct a Minister to come before the House. Points of order and comments were heard earlier. Again, I emphasise that there is nothing further that I can do.

    Housing Estates (Vandalism)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Dorrell.]
    11.43 pm
    Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of vandalism on outer city estates. That vandalism causes fear, aggravation and harm to people who live on estates in parts of my constituency and on similar estates throughout the United Kingdom.
    Quite rightly, great emphasis has been placed by Governments on inner city deprivation, on problems of urban renewal, and on the needs of people who live in deprived city centre areas. What has not been highlighted has been the disadvantage suffered in the outer city housing areas, such as Beaumont Leys, Braunstone, New Parks, Stocking Farm and Mowmacre in my constituency, places where people are living very often in difficult circumstances, partly because the Government have not provided them with the resources which are needed for them to be properly protected.
    I pay tribute to the people of those areas for the efforts they make as communities to help and to serve each other. I pay tribute to my Labour colleagues who are councillors in those areas for their constant, unremitting efforts on behalf of their constituents. The work that they have to do is often difficult. As a result of growing deprivation, need and disadvantage, vandalism has become a scourge which makes too many people's lives thoroughly miserable, makes too many people afraid to leave their homes, and too many elderly folk in particular, afraid to walk in the streets.
    I ask the Government to consider how greater resources particularly housing resources, can be brought into those areas. We must not forget that local authority housing has been severely cut, that 50 per cent. of the housing money has been removed from local authorities and that they are not even allowed to make use of the money that they received from the sale of council houses. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that any restriction on the use by councils of their own money, realised from the sale of their own council houses, is totally wrong and that these moneys should be released for use by the councils.
    Secondly, there are not enough police in those areas. In some places the police stations are shut at weekends and in the evenings. There are not enough policemen on the beat and there are not enough police available on call when they are needed so that those whose houses are robbed, those who are attacked and those whose property is vandalised feel that they have no direct access to the authority that could help them.
    Thirdly, most of the vandalism is carried out by young people. Of course, they should know and behave better, and one can often place the blame on parents. But the reality in these estates is that a vast number of parents are coping in circumstances which are very difficult for them. There are broken homes and single parent and other families where people are struggling without the support which decent society should provide.
    The youngsters on those estates are not merely entitled to jobs and to schooling, but also and as of right to have care taken of them when they have free time outside school and employment. It is not generally recognised that there is huge unemployment in the outer city estates. In Leicester

    1039
    the highest levels of unemployment are on these estates, not in the inner city. I am told that in south Braunstone, unemployment is as high as 60 per cent. When so many of the unemployed are youngsters, and when they have nothing to do with their days and evenings, it is scarcely surprising that they turn to criminal mischief, which is such a misery for all. What do they find on the estates after school or after work? There is nothing for their recreation. These are deserts of houses where communities grow up together without the sort of facilities for young people to have supervised enjoyment in a way that, happily, so many of the inner cities have.
    That is changing. There are now some neighbourhood and community centres. But youngsters want discos. They want to dance, play football and enjoy themselves, and so they should. If they do not, they will be liable to run wild. I know something of this because before I was elected to the House some 17 years ago I helped to run a youth club in the east end of London for many years. We used to work with youngsters who were clubbable and some who were unclubbable. It was most enjoyable. We learnt more from it than the youngsters, but they had a place to go where they could spend their time with people whose company they enjoyed.
    The effect of the disadvantage, lack of facilities and policing, and unemployment has been a growth in criminal damage and vandalism, which is completely unacceptable. The Government's programme does little to assist and, as a result, we have seen an incidence of crime of which the Government should be deeply ashamed, saying as they do that they are concerned about crime — a Government who came into office and stayed in office on a law and order programme.
    Vandalism, I am told, costs local government about £800 million a year. It costs private business, including insurers, £1·2 billion a year. It costs British Telecom about £36 million a year. In Greater London, there are 5,000 incidents a month when phone boxes alone are vandalised. The House should understand that the vandalising of a phone box is not merely a matter of inconvenience. They are often used by people who cannot afford telephones in their own homes to attain and achieve the immediate help they may need when they have to call ambulances, ask for help or reach the police.
    Vandalism costs British Rail £1 million a year. In some places, the police and the Government have turned their attention with some results, but in outer housing areas vandalism is getting worse. Criminal damage is now 15 per cent. of all reported crime. In Leicestershire in 1980 there were 4,357 incidents, and in 1986 there were 7,141—an increase of 64 per cent. in the last six years of Tory rule. That is reflected elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is almost the same. In 1980 there were 360,000 incidents in England and Wales and in 1986, 584,000 — an increase of 62 per cent. From 1985 to 1986 incidents were up 8 per cent. We are told that the Government estimate that under 10 per cent. of offences of criminal damage are reported, so it is clear that there are literally millions of acts of vandalism each year.
    Vandalism has reached a stage in parts of my constituency where the local communities are gathering together in neighbourhood watch schemes, and I congratulate them on that. They are seeking ways to come together in order to reduce the damage. St. Aidan's vicarage on New Parks estate and St. Aidan's church have suffered vandalism of the sort that we thought would be
    1040
    kept away from a house of God. Windows have been smashed and are now kept permanently bricked up, and cars have been stolen. The home of Father Darren Smith was burgled, and insurers are saying that they may refuse to cover further damage.
    I shall be chairing a meeting of citizens of New Parks on Saturday evening which will be attended by the police, councillors, local authorities and education authorities. They are coming together because the local community is seeking help. It is seeking to work together, seeking more facilities for the young, more police, and improvements on the estates with better lighting and security, vandal-proof equipment and alarms. It is seeking an education programme for public awareness to improve the vigilance of local people. It is seeking to improve the maintenance of the facilities on the estate.
    I ask the Government to recognise the needs of the outer city housing estates. I ask them to recognise the failure in the past to make provision for those needs. I ask them to understand that that failure has led to vandalism on a growing scale, and to real difficulties for the good people who live on those estates.
    11.54 pm
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on his good fortune in obtaining this debate, and on the work that he has done over 17 years in Leicester in promoting the interests of the outer estates. As a fellow Leicester Member, I associate myself with his comments.
    I feel very worried about the Government's obsession with inner city areas. Like my hon. and learned Friend, I think it extremely important to place more resources on the outer estates. I join him in calling for the establishment of an outer estates task force. If it is all very well for the Government to give £1 million to Highfields, they should give £1 million to Northfields, Netherhall, Thurnby Lodge, Braunstone and the other outer areas of Leicester. Unless we adopt that approach, many of the scenarios painted by my hon. Friend will become a reality.
    11.55 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has raised this topic for debate. I also note the contribution made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham).
    The debate gives me the opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to promoting effective measures to combat vandalism, and to set out our approach and the progress that we have made so far. As the hon. and learned Member has explained, vandalism is one of the most prevalent and distressing blights on the quality of life today. It takes many and varied forms ; it affects all walks of society and all types of property. However, vandalism on housing estates is especially distressing and serious because it intrudes upon, and can destroy, what people hold most dear—their security in their own homes, and their families' quality of life.
    Vandalism is by no means a recent phenomenon. As a statutory offence, criminal damage has been on the statute book in various forms for a long time. But there is a

    1041
    general perception, born out by the Home Office's published statistics, that the problem has become more serious and common in recent times.
    In the 1950's, criminal damage accounted for less than 1 per cent. of recorded offences. It now accounts for about 15 per cent. That proportionate increase has taken place during a period when the overall crime rate has also been rising.
    It is possible, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has done tonight, to try to explain the problem by reference to particular factors, such as the design of modern housing estates or the lack of recreational and employment opportunities for the youngsters who are most likely to indulge in vandalism. In fact, evidence from the research studies that have been carried out and our own individual experience tell us that vandalism—like crime in general — is a product of many and various social and individual factors. It cannot be pinned down to any specific cause or causes, important though some of those mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman undoub-tedly are.
    What is perhaps more important is to reach some measure of agreement on the need for action, and on effective measures to tackle the problem. I am glad to be able to say that action is, indeed, being taken.
    No one can doubt the Government's commitment to reducing crime in all its various forms. The momentum generated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's crime prevention seminar held in January 1986 has been carried forward by the setting up of a ministerial group which, under Home Office chairmanship, helps to coordinate efforts and initiatives across Government Departments.
    Among those in the front line of the fight against vandalism are, of course, the police. The hon. and learned Gentleman called tonight for more policing on estates. That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but everyone knows that the Government consider it essential that there is a strong police service of high morale.
    That we have achieved. The strength of the police force is now higher than it has ever been, standing at 122,000 officers supported by 40,000 civilian staff. As a result of the increase that we have made in police strength, chief officers have been able to deploy more officers on local foot patrols. That will help to build public confidence and will improve the officer's detailed knowledge of his beat. That should help directly to prevent and detect many of the sort of offences that have been referred to in this debate.
    But the police cannot do the job unaided. There is now almost universal acceptance that the fight against vandalism can be really successful only if there is participation throughout the community. It is obviously essential that the local authority should work closely together with the police in tackling crime and vandalism on housing estates.
    But even with the statutory agencies working closely together, there is still a need to enlist the active support of the local community. It is this approach, seeking to tackle the problem at a variety of levels by a variety of means, which is reflected in the initiatives which the Department of the Environment is actively promoting to tackle problems on run down council housing estates.
    1042
    That brings me to the specific measures that my Department is supporting to deal with these problems. Since 1979 the Department has supported the priority estates project, which works closely with local authorities to improve conditions on their run down estates. The PEP approach involves giving residents on these estates an effective say in how their estates are run.
    It is, of course, the residents who suffer the vandalism, graffiti and other anti-social occurrences. It is often they who come up with the most imaginative and effective ideas for tackling the problems. PEP has to date been focusing its efforts on 30 of the most difficult estates in England and Wales. It aims to stabilise the community, encourage self-help and reduce crime and anti-social behaviour.
    My Department and the Home Office are jointly funding research, just begun, to quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of crime prevention measures on run down estates. Those results will be published and made widely available.
    Many of the approaches pioneered by the priority estates project are now being taken forward on a broader front under the Department's Estate Action programme. That initiative was launched in June 1985 specifically to help local authorities tackle problems on their most difficult, run down and vandalised estates. In Estate Action's first year the Government approved 138 schemes covering 58,000 properties in 66 local authorities, involving proposed expenditure of more than £50 million. The lion's share — some £17 million — of those extra resources was targeted on measures to increase security for residents on the council estates concerned.
    Leicester, along with over 60 other local authorities, has already benefited from extra resources under our Estate Action programme. Last year Leicester received a extra allocation of over £90,000 towards the first phase of a refurbishment scheme on its St. Peters estate. This year Leicester is likely to receive a further £800,000 or so from Estate Action towards completing the scheme at St. Peters estate, and other schemes are under consideration.
    The Department recognises that poor design, bad layout and environmental drawbacks can all contribute towards unacceptable levels of vandalism and other crime, such as break-ins and burglaries. The extra resources being provided to local authorities through Estate Action are thus enabling them to take effective measures to improve the dwellings and their physical surroundings. Nationally, £50 million was made available in 1986–87, and £75 million in the current year, and we have increased Estate Action's budget to £140 million next year.
    On high-rise blocks some of the most effective ways of eliminating vandalism and break-ins have been the introduction of door-porters, or concierges. By having someone in charge of who enters the block the basic cause of insecurity is dealt with. By putting someone on the door, it is possible to deter vandals and, at the same time, increase the sense of security for residents, who know that they will be able to contact someone in case of emergency.
    Key measures being promoted by Estate Action involve putting housing managers back on to the estate, rather than have them located in remote town hall offices. This not only helps to improve the responsiveness and delivery of services on the estate, but having responsible local authority officers on the spot serves to deter vandalism by increasing "human presence" on the estate.
    We must be careful to guard against developing a siege mentality. It would be counter-productive to concentrate

    1043
    solely on making individual dwellings into fortresses and leaving the outside areas and approaches to estates unsafe. All the evidence shows that it is the risk of detection which is most crucial in deterring vandals and, therefore, we must take measures which make people feel secure in walking to and from their homes and make the would-be vandal feel uncomfortable. Things such as better lighting and door entry systems can help in this, but they must be accompanied and backed up by a human presence so that there can be a rapid response if there is a breakdown. Similarly, if litter goes uncollected, or graffiti is not quickly removed, these are signs that encourage the vandal and lead to a spiral of decline and neglect. Effective, estate-based housing management, with active involvement of the tenants, is the key to breaking out of this downward spiral.
    Community refurbishment schemes are another type of initiative which Estate Action is currently promoting to tackle problems on some of the most vandalised estates in the country and to involve local residents to the full, in the process giving employment to local unemployed people. Under the schemes, environmental improvements are carried out, usually by unemployed people who actually live on the estate. The works carried out typically involve fencing, removal of rubbish and graffiti, tree and shrub planting and tidying up open spaces. If the people who live on the estates carry out the improvements, it helps to secure their continuing support and care afterwards. In these ways we are helping to restore a sense of pride and belonging in local communities which previously felt forgotten and neglected.
    As well as remedying the physical deficiencies on council estates, for example, by providing more defensible space and making the housing tougher to break into, Estate Action is seeking to ensure that those benefits prove of lasting benefit and do not themselves become vandalised and ineffective. We are, in other words, building on the lessons of the PEP approach by seeking to ensure that physical works are properly backed up with improved management and that residents are involved as fully as possible at every stage. Increasingly, we want them to take on responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of the estates where they live.
    Nor are we limiting our financial assistance under the Estate Action programme to inner-city areas and estates. We recognise that some of the worst housing problems can be found on peripheral estates where residents feel cut off, neglected and forgotten. This type of problem estate was highlighted in Estate Action's first annual report for 1985–86 and many peripheral estates have received Estate Action support.
    If any local authority has a run down estate and comes up with innovatory proposals, including appropriate management arrangements for tackling its problems, for example, by involving private sector skills and resources, the Department is prepared to consider making extra financial help available under our Estate Action programme.
    My Department's inner cities programmes also have an important contribution to make to solving the problems
    1044
    that we are debating tonight. Under the urban programme, Leicester has received a provisional alloca-tion of £5·43 million for this year as against £5·53 million for last year.
    Mr. Janner rose—
    Mrs. Roe: I still have much to say in answering the debate.
    More generally, under the urban programme last year, the Department of the Environment provided £10·5 million grant to local authorities in support of 378 projects aimed at combating crime, for victim support, as help for ex-offenders and for preventing drug abuse.
    Mr. Janner: What proportion, if any, of the money that the Minister says is going to Leicester is for the outer city estates, which is what we are discussing tonight?
    Mrs. Roe: I spoke of the importance of help going to the peripheral estates. The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously did not hear what I said about that. When he reads my remarks in the Official Report, he will see that I covered that point. I said that if any local authority with a run down estate came up with innovatory proposals, my Department would be prepared to consider making extra financial help available under the Estate Action programme.
    A great deal of financial assistance is, therefore, being provided by the Department to help local authorities take effective action to combat vandalism and anti-social behaviour in general, and this is being backed up with advice and research.
    I mentioned earlier the study we are sponsoring with the Home Office on the effect of the PEP approach to crime. The Department of the Environment has been working with the National House Building Council to publish guidance on security design for new homes. An information sheet on secure layouts for new housing has recently been published.
    The Department of the Environment is also preparing a handbook on estate improvement, for publication next year, which will include a section on security. PEP's guide to estate-based management, which was published earlier this year, includes advice on tackling crime and vandalism.
    I hope it is clear to hon. Members that the Government are fully seized of the urgency and seriousness of the problems caused by vandalism on housing estates. We are taking considered and carefully targeted action to deal with the problems and are making available to the police and local authorities the extra resources they need to take effective action. We are disseminating the lessons learnt from pioneering projects and research so that others can benefit from them.
    If Leicester or any other authority has innovatory proposals for tackling crime and vadalism on its housing estates, we would be keen to consider them for support under the initiatives that I have outlined tonight.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Universities (Contract Funding)
  Universities (Contract Funding)
  Durham University
  Durham University
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Teaching Standards and Efficiency
  Teaching Standards and Efficiency
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Trafford)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio (Trafford)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Technological Education
  Technological Education
  GCSE (Trafford)
  GCSE (Trafford)
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Information
  Information
WALES
  Hotels
  Hotels
DEFENCE
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
  Research Contracts
  Research Contracts
PRIME MINISTER
  Visits
  Visits
  Lobbying
  Lobbying
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Engagements
  Engagements
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Bureaux de change
  Bureaux de change
  Information
  Information
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Space Development
  Space Development
  Capital Radio
  Capital Radio
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Steel Quotas
  Steel Quotas
TRANSPORT
  A453
  A453
  Information
  Information
  London Dial-a-Ride
  London Dial-a-Ride
  Hospital Patients and Visitors (Transport)
  Hospital Patients and Visitors (Transport)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Under-age Drinking
  Under-age Drinking
  Alcohol-related Offences
  Alcohol-related Offences
  Drink-Driving
  Drink-Driving
  Police Truncheons
  Police Truncheons
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Cocaine (West Norwood Cemetery)
  Cocaine (West Norwood Cemetery)
  Iraqi and Iranian Nationals
  Iraqi and Iranian Nationals
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Dogs and Cats (Research)
  Dogs and Cats (Research)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Research Contracts
  Research Contracts
  EC Development Council
  EC Development Council
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Passports
  Passports
ENVIRONMENT
  Hedgerows and Stone Walls
  Hedgerows and Stone Walls
  Information
  Information
  Insulation Grant
  Insulation Grant
  Wind Power
  Wind Power
  West Cumbria
  West Cumbria
  Sheffield (Urban Development Status)
  Sheffield (Urban Development Status)
  Spectrum Arena
  Spectrum Arena
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Severe Weather (Expenditure)
  Severe Weather (Expenditure)
  Water
  Water
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rates
  Rates
  Rolling Revaluation
  Rolling Revaluation
  Business Vote
  Business Vote
  Private Tenants
  Private Tenants
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
ENERGY
  Limestone
  Limestone
  Tidal Barrage Scheme
  Tidal Barrage Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Appeals)
  Income Tax (Appeals)
  Disposable Income
  Disposable Income
  Board of Banking Supervision
  Board of Banking Supervision
  £2 Note
  £2 Note
  Wines and Spirits (Duty)
  Wines and Spirits (Duty)
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
CIVIL SERVICE
  Professionalism
  Professionalism
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Palestinians (Self-determination)
  Palestinians (Self-determination)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  British Tourist Authority
  British Tourist Authority
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Hotel and Leisure Industries
  Hotel and Leisure Industries
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Skill Shortages
  Skill Shortages
  Community Newspapers
  Community Newspapers
  YTS
  YTS
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Barnsley
  Barnsley
  Child Care Facilities
  Child Care Facilities
  Trade Unions (Accounts)
  Trade Unions (Accounts)
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
  National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses
  National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses
  East Midlands
  East Midlands
  Discrimination
  Discrimination
  Hotel Occupancy
  Hotel Occupancy
  Local Employer Network Scheme
  Local Employer Network Scheme
  Suffolk
  Suffolk
  Self-employed
  Self-employed
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Budget Hotels
  Budget Hotels
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Labour Mobility
  Labour Mobility
  Day Trips
  Day Trips
  Oil and Oil-related Sector
  Oil and Oil-related Sector
  Health and Safety Executive (Ministerial Visit)
  Health and Safety Executive (Ministerial Visit)
  Tourism and Leisure Developments
  Tourism and Leisure Developments
  Historic Buildings and Gardens
  Historic Buildings and Gardens
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Sightseeing Tour Operators
  Sightseeing Tour Operators
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Industrial Injury
  Industrial Injury
  Industrial Relations
  Industrial Relations
  Pre-strike Ballots
  Pre-strike Ballots
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  New Earnings Survey
  New Earnings Survey
  Lost Days (Strikes)
  Lost Days (Strikes)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Employment Credit Scheme
  Employment Credit Scheme
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Data Network
  Data Network
  Haemophiliacs
  Haemophiliacs
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Hospitals (Correspondence)
  Hospitals (Correspondence)
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Social Fund Commissioner
  Social Fund Commissioner
  Income Support
  Income Support
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sewage Disposal
  Sewage Disposal
  Surplus Food and Drink
  Surplus Food and Drink
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Drainage
  Drainage
  Marine Pollution
  Marine Pollution
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Local Income Tax
  Local Income Tax
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Salmon Farming
  Salmon Farming
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Supergrass (Definition)
  Supergrass (Definition)
  Employment Equality
  Employment Equality
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Timesharing Exhibition
  Timesharing Exhibition
  Private Dining Rooms
  Private Dining Rooms
  Drunkenness
  Drunkenness
SCOTLAND
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Alcohol Expenditure
  Alcohol Expenditure
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976
  Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Private Rented Accommodation
  Nurse/Patient Ratios
  Nurse/Patient Ratios
  NHS Staff
  NHS Staff
  Nirex
  Nirex
  Hotels
  Hotels
  Spiers Wharf
  Spiers Wharf
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Factories and Industrial Sites
  Factories and Industrial Sites
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Mental Welfare Commission
  Mental Welfare Commission
  Electricity
  Electricity
SCOTLAND
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities

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

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff
The Right Honourable Sir Leonard James Callaghan, KG, having been created Baron Callaghan of Cardiff, of the City of Cardiff in the County of South Glamorgan, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.

Civil Defence Regulations: Implementation
2.47 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: 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, with regard to civil protection, all joint fire and civil defence authorities have complied with the Home Office circular dated 30th October 1986, called A Planned Programme for Implementation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, only one of the fire and civil defence authorities has so far failed to respond, and we are in touch with that authority.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I am gratified to hear such news from my noble friend. Can he tell us whether all those local authorities that have complied have done so to his full satisfaction or whether it is in the form of the creative compliance, as it is called, beloved by those who have nuclear-free zones?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is difficult to give my noble friend an answer to that question because there have been fairly voluminous replies and we are in the process of going through them. I shall be in a better position to answer once we have gone through them.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that he is considering using his reserve powers on the one authority that has not complied, which, I believe, is Birmingham or the West Midlands?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can confirm that the outstanding fire and civil defence authority is the West Midlands. We have written to that authority today. If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we shall have to consider whether we should use our reserve powers.

WEU Meeting: European Security
2.49 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the recent meeting of defence ministers at the Western European Union in The Hague.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the meeting was the latest in a series which provides a valuable opportunity for collective discussion by foreign and defence ministers from member nations. It was marked in particular by the publication of a platform on European security which will act as a guide for the future development of the union.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I presume that he is encouraged by the fact that President Reagan welcomed the platform, as it is called, which, as my noble friend said, was adopted at the recent conference at The Hague. Can he indicate what areas of work Her Majesty's Government will be seeking to promote in the coming months for the WEU's future development?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we certainly share the welcome accorded to the platform which I referred to and which reaffirms both the central position of the United States with regard to the defence of Europe and the nuclear strategy we have adopted ever since the end of the Second World War.
As regards the future activities of the WEU, that is a matter for the union itself. We have noted for example the very useful role which the WEU has recently played with regard to political aspects of activities in the Gulf.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied with the degree of liaison which exists between the WEU and NATO generally?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are satisfied. I should emphasise that the role of the two organisations is very different. Indeed, I myself addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU only last year.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, since Soviet foreign policy has not departed in a single respect from the Brezhnev doctrine where the former independent countries of eastern and central Europe and the Baltic states are concerned or in other continents, does not this emphasise very heavily indeed the importance of WEU?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody underestimates the importance of the WEU, certainly not this Government. We were instrumental in revitalising the union a couple of years or so ago. My

81
noble friend is quite right to point out that both the foreign policy and the defence policy of the Soviet Union have changed hardly a jot recently. That is not to say that we do not welcome some of the changes that have taken place.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, is the Minister concerned that there is a great danger of proliferation between the various bodies of European defence ministers? There is the WEU which does not include all the European members of NATO. There are also the European defence ministers who meet within NATO, France also being represented. There is a separate body to deal with equipment problems.
Is there not a danger of there being differences of view (I speak as an ex-President of the Assembly of the WEU), which might confuse allies, particularly the United States and Canada who are not involved in these exchanges? I feel that there is a danger of them getting at cross purposes.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is right. There is a danger that there will be a proliferation of bodies of this kind all trying to achieve the same thing. That is why it is important that all the respectable bodies such as the WEU make sure that they take part in the activities appropriate to them.
As I said earlier, the WEU provides a valuable political impetus to European security and cooperation. But it is NATO which is the cornerstone of our defence policy. It is important that those two particular areas do not get blurred.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Helsinki Final Act still has a useful part to play in the objectives of Western defence? What have Her Majesty's Government to say of the implications for Western defence priorities in view of the cuts in defence expenditure widely predicted as a result of current considerations regarding the American budget?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I mentioned just now, the platform which was agreed at the recent WEU meeting underlined the importance of the American contribution to the defence of Europe. That is why my noble friend Lord Rodney was right to point to President Reagan's welcome of that particular aspect.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, what are the Government's views on the nuclear defence policy of the Western world? Does the Minister agree that it is now absolutely essential for the European members of NATO to make immediate progress in the direction of a common conventional defence policy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody doubts the importance of ensuring the strength of our conventional weapons systems and other aspects of conventional defence. We spend a great deal of time coming together in that particular way, for example through the independent European programme group which has frequent meetings, not least at ministerial level.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the WEU gave full support to the proposed INF treaty? On the discussion which took place concerning the Iran-Iraq conflict, can he say whether there were any views about a co-ordinated Euro-forces policy in the Gulf?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the latter point, I think it is important that the WEU does not get involved in operational matters. There would have been a risk of that if it had gone too far down the road which the noble Lord indicates. Its contribution on the political aspects of the Gulf situation was very welcome. As to support for the INF agreement, I can assure the noble Lord that all the European allies, including in particular those who are members of the Western European Union, warmly welcome the agreement which is now in prospect.

Sunday Trading Law: Enforcement
2.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 in view of the current state of the law on Sunday trading they are giving guidance to local authorities as to their duty in respect of enforcing it.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unambiguous, if unhelpful, reply. Perhaps I may ask him whether he and Her Majesty's Government appreciate the real difficulties which the present state of the law on Sunday trading involves for local authorities. In particular, is he aware that Teignbridge council has felt bound to warn the monks of Buckfast Abbey that while they are perfectly free to go on selling their beautiful wines on Sunday afternoons, they commit a criminal offence if they sell bibles, crucifixes or rosaries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises some of the anomalies of the present legislation which we tried to correct in the previous Session. As your Lordships know, because of opposition on the other side we did not succeed. Therefore we shall continue to look at the situation and keep it under review.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember, as he should do, the debates that took place in this House on the earlier Bill and the amendments that were moved by the Opposition and from the Bishops' Benches? Is he encouraged by his recollection of those events not to make remarks such as he has just made, and to bring forward sensible legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my recollection is not terribly clear, as the Bill was piloted at that stage by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and not by myself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite any mistakes which Parliament may have made in dealing with this matter in the past, unless some consistency is introduced into this matter the law will be brought into even greater contempt than it is in now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are concerned about that possibility, and that is why we are considering all possible options at the moment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware of what is happening in Presbyterian Scotland, which is traditionally anti-Sabbatarian as regards Sunday trading? One can see what is happening there where there is no law to enforce.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think this is another occasion where Scotland sets a good example.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most councils apply this law unwillingly and then only after complaint? Does he agree that this leads to uneven and selective enforcement, which clearly restricts the freedom of choice to which the present Government are committed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is up to each local authority to consider how best to discharge its duty under the Act.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if he is as wise as I believe him to be he will not touch this matter at all? He will leave it to the common sense of the British people. Illogical or not, they like their British Sunday.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is one point of view that we are taking into account when reviewing the situation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in places such as Lancashire, where one town takes a certain action and the next town five miles away takes another action, that brings the whole matter into complete disrepute and local authorities are crying out for the Government to give guidance on the problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Lancashire is not unique. The Government gave very good guidance but unfortunately it was not accepted in another place.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, can the Minister give an indication of the number of successful and unsuccessful prosecutions during 1986? Can he tell us whether those prosecutions applied predominantly to the DIY trade and garden centres?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give the breakdown that my noble friend wants, but in 1986, 611 defendants were proceeded against and 543 were found guilty of offences in connection with Sunday opening.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this could all be dealt with extremely easily, simply by repealing this nonsensical legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think your Lordships' House gave a very clear indication about how it felt on this matter on a previous occasion.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, cannot small shopkeepers be left alone to make their own arrangements instead of being dictated to?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the law in respect of Sunday trading is clear, unambiguous and enforceable? Is not this proved every week by those local authorities which have the will and respect the law? They are bringing successful prosecutions whenever they choose to do so. Would it not be good advice to those who call themselves supporters of the law but who at present dislike it that they should support it until it is changed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that every single Member of your Lordships' House would seek to uphold the law. I recall a discussion in which the noble Lord took part on Sunday racing and the question of the opening of betting shops where a slightly different point of view might have been expressed, albeit inadvertently. I believe that the law is not terribly clear on this matter. There are a lot of anomalies, which is why the Auld report was so right in saying that it needed a complete overhaul. As the House will recall, your Lordships did not find that any compromise removed the anomalies.

Chlorofluorocarbons
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: 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, in view of possible effects on the ozone layer, they are satisfied that correct advice on disposal methods is being given to small users of solvents containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are relatively non-toxic, inert and non-flammable products. The electronics industry and the dry-cleaning industry are, through their trade associations, already taking steps to encourage better housekeeping of the CFC-solvents which are used. The measures in the Montreal Protocol on the production and consumption of CFCs should give added stimulus through the operation of market forces to recycling and the recovery through controlled destruction of these chemicals.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that perhaps rather predictable Answer. But is he aware that the solvents marketing branch of ICI advises small users—there are now many thousands of them in the electronics

85
industry—to take their waste and tip it on ashes so that it may thereby evaporate? Is the Minister aware that there is international feeling now about allowing CFCs to evaporate into the atmosphere because of the damage to the ozone layer? Are the Government going to do anything about this advice?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there is no doubt that conservation of CFCs is to be encouraged. The Government believe that this will be stimulated by market forces. After all, nobody deliberately destroys valuable goods that they have bought in the process of their business. But CFCs are relatively non-toxic, inert and non-flammable. They represent no direct safety hazard. So normal waste disposal arrangements should suffice. The Government are fully committed to the Montreal Protocol, which seeks to assist in conserving the ozone layer by prudent limitation of production and use of CFCs.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend said, can the Minister say whether he is aware of the instructions that ICI gives to its small users? Does he know whether other producers of chemicals, such as Du Pont, issue the same very unsatisfactory instructions?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not aware of what every producer of CFCs advises its customers. I could not possibly be. We believe that market forces should govern sensible use of CFCs.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what is the noble Lord talking about—market forces in connection with CFCs? What on earth is the Montreal agreement about? Is it not to reduce market forces and to control them? Can the noble Lord answer two specific questions which arise from the Answer given to me by his noble friend Lord Belstead on this same subject? First, does the Montreal Protocol allow an increase in the production of CFCs? Secondly, why is it that if some countries can label their aerosols saying whether they do or do not contain CFCs, the Government do not issue an order that it should be done in this country?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is correct that the Montreal Protocol allows an increase in the production of CFCs. This is to give flexibility for production rationalisation and to provide supplies for developing countries. It does not give any increase in consumption to what is commonly known as the Group of 77—those are the developed nations. As regards aerosols, the Government believe that the limitation on CFCs in aerosols will lead to an increase in the use of CFCs in other products.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this, but I think that my Question has been misunderstood. Is the Minister aware that market forces do not enter into my Question, because it concerns solvents which are being disposed of because they have been contaminated, are no longer useful but still contain CFCs? Will he undertake to look again at the Question if I table it again and come hack with a more satisfactory Answer?
Lord Beaverbrook: Of course I shall look at the matter again, my Lords. If I can come up with any more information, I shall write to the noble Baroness to let her know.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a much greater risk to the ozone layer exists as a result of the destruction of the Amazon rain forest?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that may be the case, but I think it is possibly another Question.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Building Societies (Limited Credit Facilities) Order 1987, the Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987 and the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987 will be taken.

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 Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on the day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Extradition Act 1870, Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and Fugitive Offenders Act 1967]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 108, line 26, leave out ("facts on which his return is granted") and insert ("particulars furnished to the Commonwealth country on which his return is grounded").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, along with Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 13 and 14, this

87
amendment is intended to cope with a problem that was raised during the Committee stage on the use of the words "evidence" and "facts". It was the view of some of your Lordships that the terminology used in Part I of the Bill was somewhat inconsistent, and that this inconsistency was being added to by the amendments placed before the Committee. An undertaking was given by my noble friend Lord Caithness to consider the points that were made then.
The amendments before your Lordships seek to get round the problem identified in the earlier consideration of the matter. It is intended that the provisions covering specialty should relate to "particulars" which had been furnished in support of an extradition request. This avoids the difficulty caused by reference to "facts". As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out in Committee, something may be found to be a fact or it may be found not to be a fact. That is not perhaps a shattering revelation but in relation to the matters that were then in issue it was an important point to make.
In Amendment No. 5 the term to be used in Clause 4 is, for obvious drafting reasons, different. There, it is our view that on reflection a simple reference to the "offence" will cover adequately both the facts or alleged facts of the matter and the law under which the person was accused. Amendment No. 13 rectifies a drafting defect. A fugitive is returned in respect of an offence, not on the ground of that offence. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I trust that it is not inconvenient if I mention at this stage something about the Marshalled List. I imagine that most of your Lordships make notes on the Bill of the numbers of the amendments on the Marshalled List. When we collected the Marshalled List this morning that was virtually impractical. In one case, there was no number printed. In other cases, a digit was cut out. In other cases still, the numbers were under the staples. The Marshalled List was reprinted. Perhaps I may make one comment and one plea. What happened was in no sense the fault of the noble Earl or his department. However, it is the sort of thing that inevitably follows if we try to over-legislate and to legislate too urgently. We discussed that matter last Wednesday.
My plea is this. In view of the difficulties that, under the circumstances, many of us have undergone, would noble Lords in moving amendments allow time for us to cross-reference? My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has just given us a model of how to deal with a grouping of amendments. Could that model be followed, and in particular, could noble Lords with young and agile minds make some allowance for those others of us?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as one who hopes that he has a young and agile mind, perhaps I may be permitted to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for drawing attention to the extremely original thought of mine that sometimes a fact can be shown by evidence not to be a fact. The
88
amendments that have been moved today remove any ambiguity of language and I am sure that we are all obliged for it.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can assist me. Under Clause 3(4)(b) we now have particulars,
"in respect of which his return was ordered".
We have under Clause 4(2)(b) "particulars". We have under the schedule "particulars of the facts". The point was made in Committee that nowhere in the procedure to be followed before somebody is extradited can one find the word "evidence" used. Yet the word "evidence" appears under Clause 6(4). We shall be discussing that shortly. Although the words "particulars of the facts" are mentioned as the foundation for the authority to proceed, which is the whole basis of this procedure—that the Secretary of State has to look at the particulars of the facts—when it gets to the magistrates' court, we have under Clause 6(4) for the first time:
"the court of committal shall not consider whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant the trial of the arrested person".
Further down, under Clause 6(8), when the magistrate is deciding in the normal case he has to see that the evidence would be sufficient,
"to warrant his trial if the extradition crime had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court".
I certainly find it difficult to understand what the distinction is between facts and the evidence and why we do not have the word "evidence" through the earlier procedure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for welcoming these amendments. I am extremely sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale should find himself in any difficulty. Certainly, anything that we can do to assist in clarification in the course of the debate will be done. I do not for one moment accept the distinction which he makes between persons of a young and agile mind and himself. Those of us who know him know that, whatever his age, his mind is an extremely agile one.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, wishes me to explain the distinction between particulars of an offence and the evidence for that offence. In a sense I am slightly surprised that that should be a difficult question. The particulars of the offence are the details of the allegations which are made in the complaint or other documents setting out the offence. I believe that it is a familiar phrase from the indictment rules requiring that there should be a statement of the offence and a statement of the particulars of the offence. The evidence is what is tendered when the case comes to trial, or where proceedings are required in respect of committal. The evidence is what is tendered in order to persuade the tribunal of fact as to whether or not these particulars of allegations have been established. This is a fairly well known and basic distinction of our ordinary law, and it is on the basis of that distinction that these amendments have been drafted. I hope that they meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others in the course of the Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Orders in Council as to arrangements for extradition]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think the position in relation to the second grouping of amendments—Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10—is that your Lordships may feel that Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 are consequential in the sense that if Amendment No. 7 succeeds then Nos. 2 and 8 are purely consequential on the success of Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 7 should therefore be regarded, I respectfully suggest, as the principal amendment to be considered in the context of this grouping. Thus if Amendment No. 7 were to fail, Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 would fall.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 are amendments brought forward by the Government which concern the fugitive making representations to the Minister and there being a power available to him to seek judicial review of the Minister's decision on these representations. I therefore respectfully suggest to the House that it would be premature to hear arguments on Amendments Nos. 2 and 8 which are consequential on No. 7 and that the better course might be to consider No. 7 at the same time as Nos. 6 and 10.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may come in at this stage, this is the generally accepted way that the House proceeds. I understand that Amendment No. 2 is a paving amendment to the noble Lord's definitive amendment later. Normally in this House we discuss the whole matter on the paving amendment. If any decision takes place, it takes place on the paving amendment. It is generally accepted that the result on that amendment governs the result on the substantive amendment later. I think we would be getting into a great deal of difficulty if we varied the procedure in this case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, may be able to deploy the main argument in respect of any of the amendments. In view of the position as explained by my noble friend the Chief Whip, it may be wise that he should consider raising the main argument under Amendment No. 2. When replying to that I shall be able to indicate the substance of the amendments that the Government are proposing on the central issue of this matter, and then the result of any Division that there may be on Amendment No. 2 would determine the matter of principle.
I hope that this course may commend itself to the noble Lord and that he will feel able to follow it. I do not think it matters much from the point of view of substance on which particular amendment the matter arises. The question is one of important principle and it is one on which we could presumably deploy the full argument on any particular amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, conscious as I am that I am speaking to an amendment which appears to me to be purely consequential upon an argument of principle which your Lordships will have to
90
consider on Amendment No. 7, nonetheless I address your Lordships ostensibly, as it were, on the subject of Amendment No. 2; but, as I have said, it is purely consequential upon the main issue in Amendment No. 7.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, perhaps I may come in for just a moment, because I think the correct word is "paving" and not "consequential". It is not just a form of words; it is actually an important matter.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I accept that it paves and is not consequential. The main argument on this issue is that it is a grave matter to send a man or a woman to face trial in a strange country, perhaps a country they hardly know, whose language they do not speak, where they have no friends or family to turn to for advice and support, no lawyer with whom they are familiar, and no Member of Parliament of either House to champion them. Such a person, although still presumed innocent, will be far more cut off from his roots than a person remanded in custody in his own country. For our part we find it almost inconceivable that we should be extraditing a person to a country other than his own without at least a judicial examination of the evidence against him.
If I may venture to quote the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones in the debate on this subject at Committee stage on 20th October, he said, at col. 37 of the Official Report:
"it is quite wrong that a British national or indeed any national who is in this country should be extradited to face trial abroad on the basis of evidence which would not be sufficient to commit him or her for trial should he or she be prosecuted in this country. It imposes complete inequality of treatment as between one proceeding and another".
There has been, and there can be, no serious denial that the prima facie requirement is an important civil liberty and that it is being taken away. The reason is that a number of continental countries want extradition on demand. It is unwelcome to them to have the evidence in support of the charges that they are bringing forward judicially evaluated in England. They do not want an English court to decide whether there is a case to answer, and the Government are weakly, we would submit, yielding to them.
After a full debate, the gravest disquiet was expressed from many quarters in the Committee. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said at col. 42:
"The argument seems to be that some of us on this side would be just about 'happyish'—
and I quote him—
"if the Minister took his decision with evidence. It strikes me that it is not the Minister's job to hear evidence. It is the job of the magistrate. Therefore why do we not leave it exactly where it is? Why should we give foreign governments powers over our citizens which we do not take ourselves?"
The noble Earl ended his contribution to the debate by saying that he had not heard anything which made him think that the case for overriding our historic liberties had been put with any conviction whatever.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in replying, said that he differed from those who had stressed the prima facie safeguard as an important civil liberty. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, he said, at col. 46:

91
"I remind my noble friend Lord Onslow that the prima facie requirement is not a feature of Scottish procedures in any case".
A heresy has grown up about Scottish practice in extradition cases. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is of course uniquely qualified to confirm that the prima facie requirement is as much a requirement of Scots extradition law as it is of English extradition law. First, there are in practice very few extradition cases heard in Scotland. This is because arrests are made in Scotland on a warrant issued by the metropolitan magistrate in London and he proceeds on an order from the Secretary of State. The warrant is enforceable in Scotland without the need for any independent judicial endorsement in Scotland. Then the individual concerned is brought to Bow Street and there the prima facie safeguard applies.
Next, the Act deals with a special case where a crime has been committed on a vessel on the high seas which has put into a port in the United Kingdom. Suppose that it is a Scottish port. In these cases there is an extradition request; the sheriff takes the place of the Bow Street magistrate and applies the prima facie requirement.
Finally, there are cases where it would be prejudicial to the health of the individual concerned for him to be taken from Scotland to Bow Street. In those cases Parliament requires that the case should be heard by the sheriff principal or the sheriff of the place of apprehension. In hearing that case the sheriff is deemed to be a police magistrate within the meaning of the Extradition Act, and therefore in Scotland the prima facie safeguard applies.
The position is—and I invite confirmation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that in every extradition case that can arise in Scotland the prima facie safeguard applies. I contrast that with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, at col. 46 of Hansard in reply to the debate in Committee:
"I remind my noble friend Lord Onslow that the prima facie requirement is not a feature of Scottish procedures in any case".
In Commonwealth cases, where the Scottish courts deal with applications under the Fugitive Offenders Act, the prima facie safeguard applies in Scotland in precisely the same way as in England.
The fact is that in cases of extradition, Scotland, in line with England, applies the prima facie safeguard, but in practice there are few extradition cases in Scotland because the individual is arrested there and taken to Bow Street. The point is that the law and practice of Scotland afford no justification for removing in England the benefit of the prima facie safeguard from English persons whose extradition is sought by foreign countries.
There is another and important aspect to this debate. The Government's response to the extreme disquiet expressed in many parts of the House, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the removal of the prima facie safeguard is: give the fugitive a statutory right to see the papers on which the extradition request is sought from the requesting state and give him a statutory right to make
92
representations to the Secretary of State within a very few days of committal. Then, if judicial review of the decision to order the return of the fugitive is sought, defer the return of the fugitive until judgment is given.
Those noble Lords who in Committee experienced the gravest disquiet at what the Government would have this House do in removing the prima facie safeguard should see this response as an embarrassingly transparent piece of window-dressing. It should convince no one at all.
In place of the prima facie safeguard we have what is a mouse of a right: to make representations but not about the evidence that may lie behind the allegations. Let us suppose that the individual in his representations to the Secretary of State says, "The statement of so-called facts put before the court is wrong. Here are signed statements from witnesses to prove it. Would you please see them and hear them? Please could I be told what evidence and what witnesses this European country has to support its allegations in what it calls a statement of facts?" In those circumstances the Minister will say this: "It is not for me. I have nothing to do with evidence and the courts have nothing to do with evidence. Parliament legislated away the prima facie safeguard in 1987. That apart, I have considered your representations with great care but off you must go". That is totally unappealable.
I make the confident forecast that no judicial review will ever succeed because the only issue will be whether the Minister read the representations and thought about them. This remedy is no substitute whatever for the prima facie safeguard. It is a mouse of a right. It is a simulacrum and a sham and it should be rejected by the collective conscience of this House.
Amendment No. 2 paves the way towards Amendment No. 7. The great issue, and the only issue, is whether this House will insist upon the retention of the prima facie safeguard in all cases. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it is with the greatest temerity that I, as a Silk at the Patent Bar, should presume to intervene at this stage among the Titans of the criminal law. However, I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few minutes ago as regards postponing this issue for discussion to a later stage. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, whether it would not be in the interests of the House to postpone the discussion until the later stage of the Bill in order to save time. I may be entirely wrong, but I heard what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Denham—I do not often agree with him—and I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ask for a postponement of the discussion in order to save time on the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I think that for once the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is wrong, even if for once he agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Denham. As I understand the situation, my noble friend was called upon to rise in order to deal with the whole of the matters which began with the paving

93
amendment, Amendment No. 2. My noble friend asked whether he could delay the debate, and the ruling of the House, through the noble Lord, Lord Denham, was: get on with it and deal with the whole area under discussion, and do it under Amendment No. 2, which is the paving amendment. For my noble friend to be castigated for doing what he did under the guidance of the House is a little unfair.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, needless to say, the House will appreciate that I have taken advice before saying what I am about to say. No one would expect me to know this without first taking advice, and it is perfectly plain and clear. It is that in the normal way we discuss the paving amendments and that leads into discussions as regards the other amendments. I understand that to be the normal way in which the House proceeds and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has acted correctly, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. He acted upon the advice that was given to him at the time.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I have been reproved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and now by the Leader of the House. I was trying to be helpful from a procedural point of view but, as I was entirely wrong, I apologise to the House for having intervened on this occasion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to oppose Amendment No. 7 because it goes to the heart of the matter. It was aptly described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at the Committee stage as being the issue. Are we to retain the prima facie rule or are we to have an administrative decision? That is the issue and it is within Amendment No. 7, the crucial government amendment with which we are concerned.
I oppose the amendment because I support the principle that, subject to certain safeguards as to court procedure—for example, whether or not an offence is a political act—reciprocity, as a matter of international comity, demands that we now abandon the prima facie rule. The decision, as with other signatory states to the convention, must now be an administrative decision. I have already made that point (and my remarks can be found at cols. 18, 19, 38 and 39) and would not dream of repeating it. My support for this principle was conditioned by the express assumption that this administrative decision would be subject to judicial review as it exists today and as it will develop from time to time. It is only in the interests of justice as between the individual and the state that such should be the case and any misuse of administrative power should be subject to review by a body such as, for example, in France the Conseil d'Etat and the administrative courts in many other states on many grounds including want of sufficiency of evidence.
That leads one straight to the other side of the problem which is raised by Amendment No. 10, because under that amendment it is now apparent that judicial review will lie. However, it will not lie in the ordinary way in which I certainly thought that it would lie. I respectfully suggest that the order, which is an administrative order of the Secretary of State, should take the form of a reasoned decision on the
94
basis of the evidence adduced unless national security or interests of state are involved. If such is the case it should be stated in the order and of course be conclusive for all court purposes.
Secondly, I respectfully suggest as a matter for consideration that this novel curtailment of the scope of judicial review, which is to be found nowhere else in our law—and I am open to correction on that point—and which one finds in one area at the foot of the page, is not acceptable because it could work injustice where there was no evidence sufficient to justify making the order.
For those reasons, although the spirit of Amendment No. 10 is entirely welcome and broadly acceptable as a whole, I ask my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack whether he will perhaps give further consideration to those suggestions before Third Reading. Alternatively, can he allay the fears that I have expressed or expose them as being wholly misconceived, as may well be the case? They are genuine fears and expressed, I hope, with appropriate humility.
There is a further matter that arises, because my noble friend the Minister expressly envisaged that certain documents would be furnished: first, documents emanating from the requesting state, with a full statement of facts describing the alleged conduct; secondly, evidence as to identity; thirdly, evidence as to the law of the requesting state. I am not quoting the Minister's words verbatim because they can be found in the Official Report, Vol. 489, No. 20, at col. 45; I am merely seeking to give the substance of what he envisaged. I merely advert to the fact that in Amendment No. 10 there appears to be no reference to any of these matters and, as this is the occasion for only one speech and this is a serious matter of principle, I wondered whether somehow or other Her Majesty's Government could take further time for consideration.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support this amendment. However, as mine is the first name of those tabling Amendment No. 7, I shall concentrate my remarks on that amendment, which is the crucial one that the House is to discuss. Your Lordships will remember that when this amendment was moved in Committee, as has already been mentioned, it gave rise to expressions of view that varied between out-and-out condemnation, anxiety and unease. Once again I should like to spell out the remarkable, indeed revolutionary aspect, of Clause 6(4) to which Amendment No. 7 refers.
At present when a foreign state alleges that a person within our jurisdiction has committed a crime in that state, it must provide evidence which is publicly in court at Bow Street sufficient to satisfy the experienced stipendiary magistrate there that it would warrant committal if the same crime had been committed in this country; that is, a prima facie case. The accused may be represented and the evidence may be examined publicly as to its quality, credibility and sufficiency.
Under this Bill that procedure will continue in respect of requests from all Commonwealth countries

95
and from the United States of America, but as regards foreign states described by the Secretary of State as "respectable European countries", Clause 6(4) prohibits the Bow Street magistrate from considering the sufficiency or the quality of the evidence that is being produced. The procedure under Clauses 4 and 6 will therefore consist of a request to the Secretary of State from the foreign state which includes three items: particulars of the person, particulars of the facts and of the law and a warrant of arrest.
I suggest—and this is why I asked the question of the noble and learned Lord in relation to the earlier amendment—that on those particulars which are particularly not described as evidence (the particulars of facts containing hearsay, opinion, hearsay on hearsay or whatever) the Secretary of State will issue an authority to proceed. He will have received those three items and will issue an authority to proceed on that basis. That authority will be sent down to Bow Street, a warrant will be issued by Bow Street and the person will be brought before the court.
What is the role of the magistrate under Clause 6? It is solely to satisfy himself that the alleged crime is indeed an extradition crime. That can be found at Clause 6(8) and it is all that the magistrate will do. If the alleged crime is an extradition crime, he must then issue a certificate and commit the person to await the Secretary of State's decision finally to extradite.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, described that procedure as a purely administrative act and from these Benches it was described as "extradition on demand". The noble Lord was perfectly right. He also said it was the price that we had to pay to enable us to adhere to the European Convention on Extradition. It is not the price that we shall have to pay. It is the price that the citizen who lives under our jurisdiction will have to pay.
There will be no public presentation at all of the facts. There will be no review by any court of those facts. There will be no opportunity for the accused to test or contradict those facts. The court will be a clear rubber-stamp of the decision of the Secretary of State. And who will draw up this statement of facts—which is different, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out—on which the whole of this procedure depends? That statement no doubt will be drawn up by some executive in the foreign state who is very eager to secure the return of the fugitive. No doubt he will be on the telephone or on the telex to his counterpart in the Home Office saying, "Will a statement in this form or that form be acceptable to your Minister?".
That is the mischief of bureaucracy, of internal, unseen executive acts as opposed to open, impartial, judicial examination of evidence according to well-established and accepted principle—that which the Home Secretary has had the audacity to describe as a shield against justice. Are all those Commonwealth countries, are the United States of America, the wielders of that shield against justice? The Home Secretary has had a distinguished career in the diplomatic service and no doubt to him the demands
96
of the Foreign Office appear more important than those of the rule of law, but I hope your Lordships will take a different view.
At the end of our debate in Committee on 20th October, the noble Earl at col. 52 of the Official Report gave an assurance that he would discuss the matter urgently with his honourable friend Mr. Patten, that he would come back at a later stage and that he would indeed consult your Lordships between then and Report so that we could endeavour if possible to get something that would satisfy all sides. I wish it to be on the record that there was in fact no consultation whatever. There was a meeting with the Minister last Thursday and at that meeting we were presented with a fait accompli. We were presented with the intentions of the Government set out in a letter which I have in my hand written to a Member of the other place— not to any noble Lord in this House—and the amendments which we now see on the Marshalled List.
Speaking for myself, the constructive ideas which one took to that meeting, hoping that there would be some attempt at a consensus, were simply not discussed. The Government's proposals, I regret to say, are clearly cosmetic and it is important that your Lordships appreciate that. The contents of this letter, which was released to the press—and some of your Lordships may have seen the result in the press—I have to say are highly economical with the truth. Indeed they amount to veritable parsimony, in my view, with this much abused constituent.
The letter states:
"Some commentators have erroneously suggested that our proposals would reduce the granting of extradition to an executive function. This is quite wrong. The Home Secretary's discretion … remains a long-stop against individuals being extradited who risk facing an unfair trial but the key decision will continue to rest with the courts".
The key decision will not remain with the courts and, unless the Minister has something to say about that, I suggest that that is a most misleading observation.
The letter goes on to say:
"When dealing with other stable liberal democracies it is invidious to try and gauge whose system of justice, taken in the round, is superior".
We do not seek to gauge one system against another but only to ensure quite simply that no one is dispatched to stand trial under an unfamiliar system, in a foreign language, under a different legal system, with many months of incarceration in a foreign gaol, to face compulsory interrogation without a public judicial examination of the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence.
Finally, the letter alleges, as no doubt the Minister will allege today, that the need to establish a prima facie case is the biggest stumbling block to successful extradition by our responsible European neighbours and that the credibility of our international commitment to tackling crime is at stake. Once again, I fear that this is hyperbole rather than factual truth. All extradition from England, Scotland and Wales is dealt with at Bow Street Magistrates' Court and the facts are to be found there, accessible to the Home Secretary, accessible to myself, and here they are for consideration by your Lordships.

97
Between January 1985 and today there have been 89 cases at Bow Street seeking extradition. Of those 89, 62 have been successful, 29 have been discharged and only seven of those discharges were on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence. So there were seven out of 89 cases since the beginning of January 1985. What a block on the European desires to extradite people from this country—only seven out of 89 failed on that basis! Seven were withdrawn before the fugitive was arrested, in five cases the fugitive returned voluntarily, two of them died, in two cases the evidence did not arrive within the time limit and in one case it turned out to be the wrong person identified. Your Lordships will see by that narration that there are many reasons why applications for extradition may fail.
Also in the letter France is highlighted as having a 50 per cent. failure rate and two cases failed on the ground that statements made by co-accused had not been made on oath, when in French law it is not permitted for a statement to be made on oath.
What are the facts? The facts obtained from Bow Street are these. In the four years between 1984 and 1987 France made eight applications of which five were successful, two failed and one fugitive was never arrested. The two cases mentioned cannot be traced and the allegation made in that letter is very surprising, because Bow Street knows, as anybody who is involved in extradition law knows, that there is no requirement for statements to be made on oath. There are cases which establish that.
Turning from facts as opposed to hyperbole, let me turn shortly to the concessions, so-called—Amendments Nos. 6 and 10. What are these concessions? First, there is a statutory right of the fugitive to see the papers on which the extradition is based.
That is breathtaking, is it not? It is breathtaking in the revelation of the authoritarian nature of this new procedure. How could the legislation have ever been drafted without a right being given to the accused to see the evidence on which he was being extradited? How gracious of the Government now to give that concession.
The second concession is a statutory right to make representations. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has already referred to that in Amendment No. 10(1B) on the Marshalled List. The first thing to notice about that right is that it can only be exercised after the fugitive has been committed by the magistrates' court and not before.
In putting questions to the Minister at our meeting it became clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has appreciated, that no representation will be acceptable that seeks to query or examine the sufficiency, the credibility or the quality of the evidence. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, demanded the right to full argument with evidence and representation by counsel. There is no such right in this second concession, as it is called. There is no right to call any evidence, no right to an oral hearing and no way of attacking a corrupt, biased or mistaken witness.
The third concession is judicial review. This is an entirely empty concession. There are only three
98
grounds on which judicial review can be mounted. I am sure that I shall be corrected from the Cross-Benches if I am wrong about that. The first ground is illegality. Has the magistrate or the Secretary of State gone wrong in law? The second ground is irrationality. Is his decision so outrageous as to be in defiance of logic and one that no sensible person could possibly have arrived at? The third ground is procedural impropriety. In other words, has he failed to follow the rules which are laid down? Those are the only grounds on which this matter can go to judicial review.
On the sufficiency or the quality of the evidence there can be no judicial review, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pointed out specifically in this amendment. Therefore if the Minister follows the simple rules set out in Clauses 4 and 6 his decision cannot be assailed. If the magistrate finds that an extradition crime is alleged his decision cannot be assailed.
If we wish to adhere to the convention there is no need to abrogate the evidence rule. We can make reservations, as other countries have done. I quote the reservation of Israel as an example:
"Israel will not grant extradition unless it is proved in a court in Israel that there is evidence which would be sufficient to commit for trial in Israel".
If Israel and other countries which adhere to the convention can do that, why cannot we do that? I ask the Minister to tell us why.
I have some constructive suggestions which I should have put to the Minister if there had been consultation. For example, we can relax the rules of evidence here in favour of foreign governments, as is done in the United States of America. We could refuse to extradite our own nationals, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, which we shall discuss later, suggests.
I have been a passionate supporter of the European ideal. I left the Labour Party largely on that issue. I believe equally passionately in our long tradition of liberty and justice, the principle of all citizens being treated equally before the law, the principles of natural justice and the openness of procedures that involve the liberty of the subject. I suggest that the Government surely should be asked to think again.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is natural and understandable that lawyers should attach greater importance to adopting the best possible rules of procedure and should perhaps give less weight to the broad intergovernmental considerations which arise in this as in many other cases. But your Lordships' House has the difficult task of weighing the one to some extent against the other.
I fully share the views that were expressed at some length by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in favour of the system which we operate in this country. I believe that our legal system is probably better than that of any other country in the world. We need not spend very much time in arguing that. But the practical problem is this. It is obviously important, particularly in these days of international terrorism, that we should be able to join the European convention. It is a fact, whether we like it

99
or not, that the system of procedure and justice exercised in the major European countries is different from ours. We think ours is the better. I have not the slightest doubt that they think theirs is the better. Therefore we must consider whether some sacrifice in what we regard as the ideally best system is or is not justified by the very important public considerations of our being able to adhere to the convention.
Your Lordships heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said about the possibility of entering reservations. He quoted the case of Israel. I should be interested to hear either from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or from the noble Earl how far that is a real possibility and how far that has been examined with our European friends. But I am bound to say that I start from the assumption that any radical alteration, any radical movement away from the European system and from a decision by the Secretary of State, is not a feasible achievement.
I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government, who no more want to bring trouble on themselves than any of the rest of us, would have introduced this particular part of the Bill if they had thought that possible. That would seem to involve an almost masochistic wish to inflict hurt on themselves. Therefore I consider this from the point of view of seeking to balance the ideally best—the British system of adjudication—in these cases against the very real and important advantages, particularly in the present world situation, of adherence to the convention. That surely is the problem.
It was with that in mind that in Committee a good many of my noble friends and myself concentrated our attention on securing improvements in the system proposed by the Bill. That system would be acceptable to our European friends. I wholly agree with noble Lords opposite that as the Bill was introduced what was proposed would undoubtedly have been in certain respects oppressive and unfair to the person sought to be extradited.
As some of your Lordships will recall, for that reason I pressed my noble friend as to the question of the full working of judicial review and in particular as to whether it would be possible to send the accused person out of the country before the procedure of judicial review had gone its full course. Several amendments of that kind were moved and discussed from these Benches in the hope that we could alleviate some of what seemed to be the difficulties in the Bill as it was introduced.
I think that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have responded extremely well to the points that we made. Amendment No. 10 contains considerable improvements. Those do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, would like or as far in one respect as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway would like. But I hope your Lordships will feel that they amount to a very considerable improvement within the framework of a system of decision-making by the Secretary of State for alleviating what seemed to be some of the difficulties which the system was going to cause.
100
When one is concerned with practical legislation, one must be concerned with the two points which I should like to leave with your Lordships. The first is whether we should be right to risk inability to adhere to the convention by insisting on 100 per cent. continuance of what has been the British system and what will, as has been pointed out, continue to be the British system in respect of extradition to other non-European countries.
Secondly, we must ask ourselves whether the Government, under some criticism at Committee stage, have not produced sufficiently substantial alleviation of the system to justify support. My own view is that some of us should feel ungrateful if, having had our points of view met so well and so fully, we did not feel able to support the Government. They have done very nearly all that we asked of them. Therefore the amendment, and in particular Amendment No. 7, should be rejected.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I do not fully share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that governments always choose the course of freedom and enlightenment unless they are compelled by force majeure majeure and foreign treaties to do otherwise. I should be particularly interested to hear the answers to three questions which have arisen during the debate. Up to now, I should have thought that the case deployed by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson and the noble Lord Lord Irvine, was absolutely overwhelming. I am astonished that there should be any doubt that this House should go against the arguments put forward.
My first question concerns the fact that at an earlier stage it was not so much the convention which was used as a powerful argument by the Government but rather the fact that we must extradite criminals. They were using the law and order argument that criminals were escaping because of the extradition system in this country. Are the Government relying on allegations that innumerable criminals are escaping justice because of our extradition procedures? That argument seems to me to have been knocked on the head by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Do the Government accept the noble Lord's statistics, which I understand come from the court itself? If so, what has become of the French allegation that they have given up proceedings of extradition from this country because so many of their criminals have been enabled to remain here?
Secondly, do the Government agree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson that amendments have been made to our laws of evidence which would satisfy the convention and could be put into operation?
Thirdly, I think that at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Hutchinson said that those countries which are demanding that we go against all the principles of our law themselves refuse to extradite their own citizens. Is that true? If so, that again seems to knock on the head the suggestion that those countries have any particular right to demand that we change our law in the way indicated.
Those are matters of fact. I think it is particularly alarming that the Government appear to have alleged

101
statistics which are not facts. Before we come to a conclusion, we should get those three questions cleared up. Certainly it will take much more in the way of argument than has so far been advanced to suggest that we in this country should give up our traditions when there are ways, as I understand it, of meeting the convention without doing so, and when no evidence has been produced that by doing so we shall greatly increase the chances of terrorists and other criminals being properly convicted.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think we must face up to the fact that we are living in a different world from the world which existed when our procedures were formulated, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. It is a new and different world. The problems, if they are not different, are greater in scope and in the damage that can result. I feel that, quite apart from this Bill, we ought to have in mind making certain that we are bringing ourselves up to date in being able to play our part in bringing ordered government to the rest of the world.
At Committee stage I expressed doubts, and they have been almost completely met. However, perhaps the Minister can clear up one point. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in explaining the available step by step procedure, said that if the accused wanted to submit his point of view that point of view only came to the Secretary of State after it had been remitted to Bow Street, and not before. I should like to be completely satisfied that the Secretary of State will have the answer of the accused to the documents that he has read before he remits the matter to Bow Street.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, that would take place after he had been committed from Bow Street. The decision would therefore have been made at Bow Street and the accused would be committed to be sent abroad.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that helps me; it clears up my doubts. It is absolutely right that Bow Street should make the decision. As I said in Committee, I feel that after the matter comes back to the Minister, who has the final word. The Minister ought to have the statement from the accused so that before a final decision is made both sides are in his mind and in front of him. That will be done if we accept the amendments. My doubts as expressed at Committee stage have been removed, particularly in view of that intervention.
The final point I wish to make, as a layman intervening in what is almost a monopoly of lawyers, is that in matters such as extradition—and perhaps in other matters as well—I am not certain that the nit-picking which is part of the old procedures and which was applauded in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is a good idea. We may not get out of that the justice which we are all after. On matters such as this, there must be a finishing point so that the matter can be dealt with and brought to a proper end. We must take into account, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has said, that if we accept the terms that enable us to accept the convention, we are keeping in step with our partners. It is not for us to
102
say that they are denying justice by applying their particular procedures.
My doubts, as expressed at Committee stage, are satisfied, and I shall be happy to accept the Bill as it will stand with the amendments that have been put forward by my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said a few moments ago that he was delighted to hear that the magistrate was going to make the decision and that this was absolutely right. Does he realise that the magistrate will not be making a decision on the evidence?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, he will be making the decision. If the objection is to there being no appeal to the Court of Appeal, the final decision will be made by the Secretary of State under the Bill. The Secretary of State will have the accused's own defence in detail so that he can arrive at what he thinks will be a justified decision.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, there is continual reference to Bow Street. I was pleased by the reference in the Bill to the Sheriff of Lothian having something to do with the matter. It is a pleasure to note in Clauses 5 and 6 that Scotland has a jurisdiction. Under these amendments, however, it seems that it has not. The rules in Amendment No. 6 are to be made under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which so far as I know, does not apply to Scotland. The rules in Amendment No. 10 are to be made under the Supreme Court Act 1981. Is there to be a right of judicial review in Scotland or not? If there is, perhaps the noble and learned Lord when he replies, perhaps with some Scottish bias, can make clear those cases that will be regarded as Scottish and those regarded as English. There is nothing in the Bill to decide which case goes where.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to say one word. Up to now, in order to extradite a person there has had to be prima facie evidence before the magistrate at Bow Street. I can understand that that involves our obligations under the convention. All well and good; let it be altered. I gather that the Bill gives the decision to the Secretary of State. The particulars have to be put before him. He may have particulars on both sides. He then makes his decision. I agree that this step is in accordance with the convention. There is then the important safeguard in Amendment No. 10 (1G) which states:
"At any time…the person to whom the order would relate may apply for leave to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to issue the order".
On one point I join with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Amendment No. 10 (1M) states:
"Judicial review may not be granted in respect of an order under this section on the ground that the Secretary of State did not have before him evidence sufficient to justify the making of the order".
Judicial review should not be circumscribed in any way. There should be a proper application of judicial review to ensure that the Secretary of State has acted properly.

103
That is my only objection. I join hands with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that it is all very good except Amendment No. 10 (1M).
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is correctly said that lawyers perhaps try to take the monopoly of wisdom and discussion in your Lordships' House when matters of this kind are being discussed. It is wrong for the House to think that that is so. The issues here are important for every one of our citizens. It would be an insult to suggest that your Lordships could not readily grasp the issues involved. They are very simple.
The existing law provides that, before we can send out a citizen from our country to a strange one to be charged with an offence, he has to come before a court. We have great faith in our courts, and I hope that we always shall. There is the safeguard not of a transient Minister looking at something from an administrative point of view but of a qualified lawyer who has met with the distinction of being appointed a stipendiary magistrate. The safeguard is that, before someone can be sent by extradition to take his chance before a foreign court, the learned magistrate has to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case against him, not that the case is shown to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In ordinary language, that means it looks as though he has a case to answer. That has been a safeguard for our subjects for many a long day.
Europe comes along with a convention. Subject to the interesting point as to whether it would be all right to sign the convention but to insist upon the prima facie rule, the Government—without yet having answered the question—are saying to all of us that this age-old protection for our subjects has to go because there is inconvenience somewhere with our European partners. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, says that we live in different days. I hope that we shall never live in different days in the sense that we shall want to give up without good reason the fundamental principles of the liberty of the subject.
It is suggested, as I say, that the prima facie rule is to be given up. Has anyone paused to think—I say this with all humility—where we are going down this slippery slope? Europe is responsible for our doing this. We do it out of co-operation and friendship because of our membership of the European Community. Is Africa less just than Europe? Is Asia to be deemed less just than Europe? Where is it going to end? How long can we resist the call from other countries not within the European Community when we endeavour to have extradition treaties with them? Are we to say, "You are not as good as Spain"? Spain—as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, knows from Question Time, especially over issues like Gibraltar and the use of the airport there—"is terrifically reasonable, extremely just." Has Greece had such a history of justice and good government? Possibly it has in centuries gone by, but not in recent times. Are we to say that countries outside the European Community also must have, when they ask for it, exemption from our prima facie rule?
104
I repeat that it is a slippery slope. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, suggested that there might be some Foreign Office influence being brought to bear. I cannot see much Foreign Office diplomacy in giving way on the prima facie rule to the European Community and being called upon to advise the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, "Do not give way on the prima facie rule when you are entering into a convention with country "Y" which is outside Europe. Tell them they are not as good as the people within the European Community with their system of justice." What a slippery slope that is. It is not a matter for lawyers; it is a matter for responsible parliamentarians to understand.
The Government endeavour to shift us away from that and to do away not only with the prima facie rule but also with anything that suggests that the stipendiary magistrate at Bow Street has any duty at all except to put his rubber stamp on a document. This goes now not to a stipendiary magistrate trained in the law and permanent in his position up to pensionable age. It goes to the transient Secretary of State—a worthy soul at the moment who has, I am sure, the respect of this House wherever we may sit. But who in your Lordships' House would forecast that those words could be used for every one of his successors?
However, it is the Secretary of State, part of the executive branch and not of the judiciary, who in future will have in hand the whole destiny of a subject whose extradition is sought. When the Government moved in that direction, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and those in your Lordships' House who fight so zealously for freedom—I say this with no disrespect—spoke up valiantly at Committee stage. They said to the Minister—I am sure I am fairly paraphrasing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that the Minister had better be careful before he tried the loyalty of those who sit on Government Benches. There must be safeguards. The raw clause, as it then appeared, did not commend itself to many Members of the Committee, wherever they sit.
The Government and the Minister took the clause away. I am not going to grumble about the lack of consultation between Committee stage and Report. I shall grumble if there is no real consultation on this issue between Report and Third Reading. On the last sitting at Committee stage we had a discussion about judicial review. Everybody thought, be it lawyer or layman, that this was possibly the answer if you are to move away from the courts to an administrative act of the Secretary of State. At least there would be judicial review.
I humbly rose and said that I thought judicial review would not be available on the issue of raising the adequacy of evidence. The Minister, in his reply, was as honourable and honest as he always is. He said that it was a matter he would have to look into. However, I recall one noble and learned Lord telling me that I was wrong and that judicial review in regard to looking at the evidence available would be open to the subject. The noble and learned Lord who said so is now nodding his wise head. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.

105
We now have Amendment No. 10. We have gone away from our old tradition. The courts are not there any more; it is an administrative act. Judicial review, says the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—subject to a very wise remark that he made thereafter about subsection (1F)—is to be available. I ask myself: on what? What is the point of a judicial review when one is prohibited from raising the point as to whether there is any evidence at all upon which an extradition order can be made?
Is the point to be made—I am not being facetious with your Lordships—that the Secretary of State was irresponsible that evening and that there is evidence of the fact that he over-indulged himself at a dinner party? Is it to be suggested on judicial review that the Secretary of State did not read the papers? What else can you do if acting on behalf of someone whose extradition is sought but say on judicial review, "But this man is innocent. He says he is innocent, and there is no evidence against him"? But you cannot do it. You cannot do it because of subsection (1M). You are barred.
We are doing something desperately serious here, and I do not, I hope, exaggerate. I am now speaking personally and it may well be that others sitting on my Front Bench who are much more learned than I shall ever be will differ from me. However, I venture to say that to rush into the Division Lobby in support of, "No, in spite of the European convention and everything else, we keep the prima facie case rule and we do it before magistrates alone; we favour that and want it" or to vote for an amendment which shifts the whole of this onto administration and the executive and debars the rights of judicial review on the one material matter that counts, would be sheer recklessness and make a mockery of your Lordships' Division Lobbies.
What really ought to take place is this. The Minister—I say this with respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—should say that there is enough strength of feeling in this House to justify thinking again before Third Reading, having proper consultation before Third Reading, and arguing out subsection (1M) before Third Reading, to see whether it ought not to go. We need to argue the case for a retention of the powers, rights and traditions which we have had over the centuries and which should not easily be tampered with because of a European convention.
I have one last comment to make after that rather heavy subject. I noticed in Amendment No. 10, as I suppose your Lordships did, one safeguard in subsection (1C):
"A notice under subsection (1A) above shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by subsection (1B) above".
I welcome, with all my colleagues in the legal profession, the opportunity of arguing before the court that the whole of the extradition proceedings are a nullity and that the order made could be set aside because I deem the language of this notice not to be ordinary but extraordinary.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I was one of those who expressed reservations about this matter in Committee. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-
106
Carpenter, I feel that the Government have moved considerably towards meeting many of those reservations. I was fairly happy when I read the amendments, in particular Amendment No. 10, and especially when I reached subsection (1G). However, as has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, my anxieties returned somewhat when I read subsection (1M).
It still seems to me—I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on this point—that there is no overwhelming virtue in the retention of that part of the amendment and that its deletion would meet most of the requirements—certainly those expressed on this side of the House, in particular by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In all other respects I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having met my reservations. On this issue it would seem to me not unreasonable if the Government were to look again at the necessity of retaining subsection (1M) in what is otherwise an excellent series of amendments.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to say just a word on the subject of Amendment No. 10(1M) and in particular on the subject of judicial review. It is not a modern panacea to achieve a form of appeal; it is a procedure to attack, not the merits of the decision, but the decision-making process. It seems to me that there is confusion in thinking that without subsection (1M) there would be a right of appeal on the merits of the decision. Subsection (1M) takes away from the judicial review process one of its vital constituents—that is, the right to challenge an irrational decision, a decision which no reasonable person would make.
Why the Government should require that protection for the Minister I for the moment do not follow. If a Minister has acted wholly irrationally then there should clearly be access to the courts. I think that there may be confusion in thinking that judicial review gives the right to attack the merits of the decision, whereas it attacks only the decision-making process.
That brings me to my second point. When my noble friend Lord Hutchinson mentioned the three constituents of judicial review he referred to the "breach of rules", not completing the vital sentence, "breach of the rules of natural justice". I cannot find anything specific in the amendment that provides to the applicant—the person who wishes to challenge the order—any right to be told the basis upon which the order is sought to be made. The rules of natural justice are merely rules of fair play. I cannot for the moment—no doubt I have misread something—see how the person has the opportunity to make full representations unless he is provided with particularity of the very basis upon which the proposed order is to be made.
Amendment No. 5 seems to make matters worse, because the Minister no longer receives particulars of the facts but particulars of the offence. I cannot find any express provision—no doubt it is my incompetence. I have been involved in other problems earlier in the day. I think that the obligation upon the Minister to give full particulars as to why

107
the order is sought should be spelled out. Without those particulars, the rules of natural justice seem to me to be offended, because one cannot prepare one's answer to the charge unless one knows what the charge is about.
Those are my two points. In short, if judicial review is to be allowed, subsection (1M) should go out, otherwise we emasculate judicial review, and if judicial review is to stay in, with the obligation to make a decision according to the elementary rules of natural justice, there must be a clear obligation to give full details of what is alleged against the person who wishes to make representation.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, if subsection (1M) goes, there would still be no possibility of taking a case to review on the sufficiency or credibility of the evidence.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I understand it, without subsection (1M) one can attack the Minister's decision on the ground that it is irrational. Under judicial review one cannot attack the merits of the decision as one would by way of appeal. As I understand it, judicial review is designed to see that the decision-making process has been conducted in accordance with the law, not irrationally, and in compliance with the rules of natural justice.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as a layman, I intervene in this debate with considerable trepidation. I listened carefully to the arguments in favour of the amendment put forward with great eloquence and ingenuity by the noble Lords, Lord Irvine, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Mishcon. But I must confess that I did not find them wholly persuasive.
We are after all talking not about citizens being sent away to some grisly fate but to face a trial in another country in Western Europe. The real question that should concern us is whether a person extradited from this country will or will not receive a fair trial. Consequently, we should, I am sure, only have extradition arrangements with countries where those accused of offences can expect to be given such a trial. It must be for the Government to judge which those countries are.
Having then restricted extradition arrangements to those countries, I think we should make the actual procedures as simple and as expeditious as possible. It is surely right that persons accused of terrorism, fraud, drug trafficking and other crimes should face trial with the minimum of delay in the country where the alleged offence has taken place and that terrorists and murderers should not evade justice because of technicalities.
We know that in the recent past the procedures have not worked well, at any rate for some countries. For a foreign country with a different, but possibly equally valid, legal system, it has often been difficult in practice to prove in a British court that there is a prima facie case against a suspect.
As I understand it, the Spanish Government became so exasperated with their inability to get
108
wanted persons delivered from the United Kingdom to face charges in Spain that they denounced their extradition treaty with the United Kingdom. As a consequence, as we all know, numbers of British criminals were able to settle safely in Spain on what became known as the "Costa del Crime". That was hardly in our interests or those of the Spaniards.
Again when with the help of the Irish Government we have sought to extradite persons wanted to face terrorist charges, our efforts have on a number of occasions been frustrated by the Irish courts on pure technicalities.
As I see it, what has caused the trouble in this country has been the requirement that the requesting state should submit prima facie evidence in a form admissible in English court proceedings. The Government's proposal to remove that requirement seems to me in the light of experience to be fully justified, as we are talking only about those countries which have fair and honest legal systems.
There should, I believe, be the minimum of technical hurdles. There have been too many in the past, so that this country has become something of a haven for criminals, including some accused of the gravest crimes. I think that is wrong. Consequently, we ought, I suggest, to reject Amendment No. 7.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not quite sure what evidence the noble Lord, Lord Moran, possesses that this country has become a haven for foreign criminals. Having been a Home Office Minister for five years, no such facts were ever drawn to my attention at any ministerial meeting, through the Foreign Office or through any other source. I hope very much that we are going to make a decision about this very grave matter on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of fairly wild assertions of that sort.
The issues before us were very fully deployed during the Committee stage. I took particular notice, and I am sure the Government did also, of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on that occasion, and also what was said by a number of his noble friends.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his speech this afternoon said that at Second Reading this Bill was oppressive. He said that there is now considerable improvement. He said that there had been substantial alleviations.
I wonder what these substantial alleviations really amount to, particularly after the speech we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. What is this massive sea change with which we are now confronted? What is the huge difference that we now see before us?
There are three issues which have been identified in government Amendment No. 10 and set out in the letter from the Home Secretary to Mr. Stanbrook. The first is that the person in peril of being extradited will see the papers. To be absolutely frank, it never occurred to me that he was not going to see the papers. I am not sure whether on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, took the view that the person in such a situation was not going to see them. It did not occur to me that the Home Office—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I should like to say that the noble Lord referred to me, but I simply point out to him that as the Bill started there was no specific provision that the person concerned should see the papers, and there now is.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true, and to the extent to which it is set out in the Bill it is now explicit rather than implicit; and that is an improvement. In my view, it is no substantial improvement. It does not represent a major change in the position of the Government.
The two issues which involve substantial change in the position of the Government are these. The first is the question of a judicial review. I do not propose to go over that ground again because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, dealt with it very fully and I think most of us agree with everything he said.
The other issue is the question of representation. What do representations amount to? What is particularly interesting is: what does the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, imagine that they amount to? I give him the point that it is now spelt out on the face of the Bill. But let us examine again the example which I gave in the debate at Committee stage. A British national returns from Italy. He is not an international terrorist. He may be accused of committing a serious assault on an Italian police officer while on holiday.
The Italian Government ask for him to be extradited. We now know that the magistrate will have no power to examine the evidence on which he makes a determination of the matter. He has no power whatever. The one right the person at risk of being extradited possesses is the right to make representations to the Secretary of State. What does that actually amount to? I should be very grateful if we could have some assistance on this matter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Is the accused going to be given an oral hearing? If I may go back to the example I gave at Committee stage, it is alleged by the Italian authorities that he was identified by an Italian police officer as the person concerned and the basis of his defence is that it was a false identification—an error of judgment, either honest or otherwise, by the Italian authorities. Before he is sent to Italy on the basis simply of a process of certification—because that is all we are talking about here—is he going to have the right to have his views on the matter conveyed orally to the Home Office officials who are going to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State?
My suspicion is that he will not have any such right, so I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will find, when the noble and learned Lord speaks, that these major improvements he detected are a result of a rather optimistic evaluation of the Government's position at the moment. Suppose a person is denied the right of making oral representation in what is going to be an act by the executive. I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to this fact. He cited the example of international terrorism, which is a very serious matter. At the moment, if a person is going to be removed from this country under the terms of the
110
Prevention of Terrorism Act and taken either to the Irish Republic or somewhere else, he has the right to make oral representations to an adviser nominated by the Secretary of State. Is a person in the situation I have described going to have any similar right?
We should have no doubt what we are talking about. To those who constantly use the term "international terrorism". I say that in the overwhelming majority of cases we are not talking today about international terrorists. We are talking about a whole range of people who are accused of different criminal offences. It seems to me essential that there should be the clearest statement from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to what are going to be the rights of the person who wishes to make those representations. Will they be equivalent to those rights under legislation specifically designed to deal with the question of international terrorism? Or will they, as I suspect, be far less substantial?
The other two issues I should like to touch on relate to some of the arguments which have been used to justify this very substantial change in our procedures. We have the letter sent by the Home Secretary to Mr. Stanbrook, dated 12th November, which the Government have very kindly made available to us. They point out the difficulties which have arisen. I have no doubt that difficulties have arisen in a number of cases and it would be foolish to suggest that no problems have ever arisen in extradition cases.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will share my surprise at the suggestion that the Austrians have been so remarkably unsuccessful since 1933. It is not perhaps the most powerful argument in the Government's case because of the fact that Herr Hitler was responsible for the affairs of Austria very soon after 1933. I should have thought it mildly surprising if any British court had sent back an alleged offender to Austria in such circumstances.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord this question. Given the fact that there is going to be a withdrawal if we accept the Government's proposal of the prima facie rule, what happens if an error is made? What is the attitude of the Home Secretary going to be to the person who is removed to Italy and then found by an Italian court to be innocent of the offence for which he was extradited? The Home Secretary is the person who decided to allow him to be removed to Italy. Two years later, perhaps after the man has been committed and kept in custody in an Italian gaol awaiting trial, it is found that he is wholly innocent of the offence for which he was extradited. Will the Government give him any right of compensation for the error committed in this country? These are interesting questions and many of us look forward to hearing the reply of the noble and learned Lord.
5 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Bone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—I am making a comment, as I may on Report—I am sure that he would not wish the House to think that the noble Lord, Lord Moran,

111
has less knowledge of what he is saying than the noble Lord has. He has just resigned as Ambassador to Portugal and has had a very long history in the diplomatic corps. He therefore knew what he was talking about.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think when the noble Baroness examines what I said she will find that the point she has made has no validity whatever.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise with considerable hesitation for two reasons. One is that I was not present at the Committee stage and the second is that I am no lawyer. Other noble Lords may be in the same position. We may have to go into the Lobby, one way or the other, tonight. The problem seems to me to hang on one single issue; that is, subsection (1M) in Amendment No. 10. I say that because I heard the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and other noble Lords drawing attention to this, particularly the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Ackner. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made the suggestion that the Government should defer this until such time as there has been consultation and then come forward at Third Reading. I can understand that suggestion but I am not sure that it is very satisfactory.
What I hope is possible is that whoever is to answer for the Government will say "Please believe that we shall go ahead on a thorough review of subsection (1M) before we come to Third Reading. On that basis we ask you not to support the amendment". If we had that as an assurance I should feel much happier about which way to go. It goes a long way towards meeting the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and it would meet the worries of many of your Lordships who have spoken today.
Lord Havers: My Lords, I intervene because I was slightly concerned about the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. What I say is designed to be helpful to the Minister. I had read Amendment No. 10, subsection (1M) as meaning evidence in its true sense and therefore fitting with the abolition of the prima facie rule. But having heard the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect as a lawyer, I am a little concerned, just as I am a little concerned with the other point which he made about particulars being given to the person who is under the threat of being extradited. That can be easily done, but I should feel more reassured if the Minister either in winding up today or if necessary at Third Reading can give the House an assurance that Amendment No. 10 subsection (1M) was designed to cover the abolition of prima facie and did not go so far as to affect irrationality.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hesitate to speak. I speak as a layman and I had not intended to speak. But the arguments I have heard in Committee and this afternoon from the Benches opposite have so astonished me that they have—I was going to say rendered me speechless, but that would be an inaccurate description of what I am doing.
112
The arguments which have been presented to laymen from the Benches opposite seem to me to be in direct contradiction of what I have always believed to be the doctrines of conservatism. It was the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who said that we were living in a new world to which we must adjust, apparently by adjusting the principles on which our judicial system has been based for many centuries and has grown over many centuries. I think he referred to the extremely convincing speech of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson as nit-picking. I do not say that he necessarily meant that, but if it was nitpicking I think we could do with some more of it in this House.
The arguments that have been put forward are astonishing to me, particularly coming from the Benches opposite. We have been told, first, that we are living in a new world to which we must adjust by abandoning systems of justice that have been developed over hundreds of years. Secondly, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that in the matter of conflicts of interest between the Government and what I think he called judicial procedures or legal procedures—he will correct me if I have the phrase wrong—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord could hardly have got my speech more wrong. What I said was that there was a natural affection on the part of lawyers for our traditional procedures—an affection which I share—but that your Lordships' House and the Government had to weigh the matter very carefully when an important matter like the international convention was also in issue.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's accurate repetition of the words he used, which I remember less accurately than he did.
It is the contemporary patron saint of conservatism, Adam Smith, who said that wherever one saw two producers talking to each other one must assume that there was a conspiracy against the consumer. It is my view that it has been a tradition in British politics that wherever one sees two Ministers talking together one must assume that the interests of the individual public citizen might be at risk and that it is the duty of the Opposition to expose that. I therefore feel that where this careful balance, of which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter spoke, between the preoccupations of lawyers—who in this case I am glad to say are concerned with defending the rights of an individual and, I may say, the rights of the innocent individual—and the interests of the Government, my natural predisposition would be to be in favour of the lawyers and to be highly suspicious of the motives of the Government.
Thirdly, we have had arguments from the opposite Benches, from the Conservative Party, that we must abandon in the case of extradition the principles of natural justice on which we have all been brought up. The Minister shakes his head, but he will have an opportunity later to answer the arguments both of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. Having listened to the arguments today and in Committee, I am fairly convinced that we are being asked to abandon the

113
rules of natural justice on which I have been brought up, which every employer has to follow, which every officer in the army has to follow and on which the whole basis of British justice is built. I find it truly astonishing that the great Conservative Party of Edmund Burke should be advocating this here today. It was he who said that we have a responsibility for the past, we have a responsibility for the present and we have a responsibility to those who have still to be born. It seems to me that those responsibilities are being abandoned in a cavalier way.
Fourthly, the Government are asking us to abandon, to deny or to give up the separation of powers on which our constitution has not been written but on which it has always been based. In the distinction between the role of the judiciary and the role of Ministers the Minister is being asked to act in a judicial capacity. The separation of powers is something which we should preserve.
We have been given three arguments why these major abandonments of important traditions are found to be acceptable. First, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, told us that he cannot believe that the Government would have done it unless it was necessary. I confess that I find that argument less than convincing. When I see the things that this Government have done I find it most unconvincing.
Secondly, we are told that significant concessions have been made. The speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Mishcon, have made it clear that those concessions are cosmetic, transparent and virtually without value. Thirdly, we are told that we have to do it because we are members of the European Community. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I have long been a passionate advocate of our joining the European Community. Indeed, in 1958 I tried to move an amendment in the other place advocating just such a course when the party opposite was resolutely opposed to it. But still I believe that there are other ways in which we can be good members of the European Community without abandoning the heritage of British law.
Nor, as some people have suggested, are we saying that English law is better than anybody else's law. All we are saying is that English law is our law. We have developed it and we have found it satisfactory. We think it should be preserved. I hope that noble Lords on the Benches opposite will remember their old traditions and their historic role and will conserve the traditions of English law.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not intend to speak and I hoped that somebody else would say what I am about to say. I shall be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, said or implied that really we are not talking about the be all and end all of a serious matter but are only sending somebody to be tried in a court that we consider to be just. That is a brief summary of what the noble Lord said. Nobody replied to that. It seems to me that that accepts the proposition that through a process of what may be law in this country an individual, one of our kinsmen, can be sent abroad to be tried for a crime. Is that not rather serious? I rather suspect that in his journeys
114
around the world the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has lost touch with ordinary people.
I have recently experienced the suffering of people being extradited who maintained that they were innocent. I have seen their families go through torment and anguish. They claimed that they were innocent. But here we are talking about extraditing somebody and seeming to imply that it is not a serious move. Of course it is a serious move and of course one could be tearing a family to pieces. One could be doing it on the basis of removing the right of a person to give evidence and for that evidence to be examined before he is committed to what, for him, is a terrible situation. It is a right that this Chamber has always advocated.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in seeking to deal with the matters of principle that arise on Amendment No. 2 and the later amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has referred, it is important to begin by looking at the background against which this question arises. A number of noble Lords have indicated some degree of hesitation in entering this debate on the basis that they are not lawyers. I should like to start by giving my understanding of the procedure that we have in mind as a result of the various amendments which the Government have proposed, taken along with the original proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, talked about the separation of powers. It is vitally important to remember that the extradition procedure with which we are dealing starts with a judicial act in the foreign state. It is a judicial warrant issued in the foreign state as part of a criminal process in that state. It is not started by a foreign government. It is started by a judicial officer in a foreign state as a result of proceedings taken before him. The second point is that before this requirement that is fundamental to these amendments is dispensed with, there must be a mutual recognition between the United Kingdom and the foreign state that the system of justice in that foreign state is sufficiently acceptable to enable this requirement, which I shall call the prima facie rule for the moment, to be dispensed with in this country.
What happens is this: the judicial officer in the foreign state, the requesting state, issues a warrant. He issues it on the basis of information which has been put before him. We have concluded after examination of the matter that that is a reasonable judicial proceeding as part of an accepted system of law.
It is traditional and obviously convenient that instead of courts communicating directly, one to another, requests from one court in one country to the courts of another country should go through the diplomatic channels of those countries. Accordingly, when it comes to executing a warrant issued, let us say, in France, in this country the request must come through the Government. But when that request comes, according to Clause 4 of the Bill, as amended,

115
in the light of the provisions that we are now considering there shall be furnished:
"particulars of the person whose return is requested; the particulars of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted (including information sufficient to justify the issue of a warrant for his arrest under this Part of this Act); in the case of a person accused of an offence, a warrant for his arrest issued in the foreign state".
It is essential that these particulars, plus the warrant, come with the request. That is the foundation of the proceeding. That is the same kind of proceeding as would apply against a person resident in that state.
It is important to bear in mind that the basic extradition Act of 1870 on which this has been grafted generally applies only to offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the requesting state. As many of your Lordships know, it is perfectly possible in some foreign systems for the state to try offences committed outside its geographical boundaries. If there is a system of that kind available, where, for example, France can try its nationals for an offence committed beyond France, it is perfectly natural that it should prefer to try these nationals itself rather than send them abroad to the other country.
However, our system of law is and has always been that the procedures for trial in this country are of such a kind that it is extremely difficult to have extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction, and accordingly our courts generally will only deal with offences committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. There is an exception in relation to murder, manslaughter and the Scottish equivalent, culpable homicide, but generally these are the rules. One has to have that in mind in comparing our system with other systems. It was said that some foreign systems do not allow their own nationals to be extradited. They may cope with that by trying them themselves for offences committed abroad. But when we do not have that we must take account of it in considering our extradition arrangements.
The warrant arrives with the supplementary particulars and information to which I have referred. It is then the subject of an order to proceed by the Secretary of State issued to a judicial officer in this country. Up until now the situation was that such extradition matters to be dealt with by a judicial officer in this country were to be dealt with by the police magistrate at Bow Street. This Bill recognises that there is a possibility of justice being dispensed in Scotland in extradition matters and makes provision accordingly, which I am sure your Lordships would welcome.
The result is that there is a judicial hearing at Bow Street. At Bow Street the judicial hearing will be concerned with three principal questions. The first is whether the person subject to the arrest in this country and brought before the magistrate in Bow Street—I am taking Bow Street now as the paradigm example—is the person whose extradition has been sought and who is the subject of the foreign warrant. That is the first question. The second question is whether the offence, or offences, in respect of which his extradition is being sought are indictable offences within the meaning of the statute. The third question is whether these offences or any of them are political
116
offences, in which case no warrant of commital would be granted.
The magistrate at Bow Street has to deal with these matters as a judicial officer. He is proceeding on the basis of the warrant granted by his colleague in the requesting state. He deals with it dealing principally with the questions to which I have referred. Of course he is open to argument and evidence, for example, that the offence in question is a political one and that no warrant of committal should be granted.
At this stage the accused has had the judicial process in Bow Street: he has had served on him a copy of the material provided under Clause 4; and he has now got a warrant from the magistrate at Bow Street against him authorising his committal for extradition. What is proposed is that at that stage the accused person should have the fullest opportunity of representing whatever he likes to the Secretary of State against the extradition. Any reason he has; any reason he may have.
At this stage I should like in passing to mention the example that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave of some person whose extradition was sought to Italy, and was contending that the indentification in Italy was mistaken. Of course, as your Lordships who understand the phrase "prima facie evidence" know, the question of whether the evidence is credible or incredible, whether it is wrong or right, is a question that will have to be decided at the trial. If there is evidence from somebody who indentifies the person, and that evidence is competently given in proper form, then there is prima facie evidence that that was the person.
In this procedure which we are proposing the Home Secretary would have perfect entitlement to consider as part of the representation a question such as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised. He could represent that the evidence of this Italian policeman was subject to various difficulties, various inhibitions, possibly something about the lighting or the circumstances in which the evidence was given. The Home Secretary would be perfectly entitled to consider that and consider the weight to be attached to it, and, if he thought that representation was a good one, to give effect to it.
A noble Lord: But how would he know?
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord asks me a question somewhat silently but sufficiently for me to pick it up. He asks how would the Home Secretary know? Well he would know in exactly the same way as the magistrate at Bow Street would know, because the magistrate at Bow Street is not to decide the case. He is not there to try the case. Conflicts of evidence are, generally speaking, matters for trial but the Home Secretary would certainly have a right to look at, and a duty to look at, the representations in the light of all the circumstances, and he might well feel that the representations were sufficiently strong for him in the exercise of his discretion—because he has no duty to order extradition—not to allow this person to be extradited.
The representations are representations at the conclusion of the judicial proceedings at Bow Street, and any representations are open. There is a full and

117
unrestricted right to make representations. Of course the Secretary of State in considering these representations might well find it necessary to follow them up, for example, with a request for further information to the requesting state, or the like.
At that stage, when he had considered fully the representations and all the other matters before him, the Secretary of State would have a duty to come to a conclusion. That conclusion, if it was against the person to be extradited, would be in the form of a notice of intention to proceed. At that stage the amendments that we propose provide that the intention will not be given effect to until after an interval sufficient to enable an application for judicial review to be made. That application for judicial review would be open on all the grounds on which judicial review has been developed by the courts of this country as a safeguard for the propriety of administrative action.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has described these, and I would not venture to repeat what he said. He pointed out that the process of judicial review is a process basically to ensure that the decision-making process has been properly carried through; that the matters that have to be considered have been properly considered, and that rules of law which apply have been properly applied.
This brings me to Amendment 10 and in particular to the last part of that amendment on page 3 of the Marshalled List, which has been the subject of somewhat distinguished criticism. This is (1M), which provides:
"Judicial review may not be granted in respect of an order under this section on the ground that the Secretary of State did not have before him evidence sufficient to justify the making of the order."
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner was inclined to criticise this provision on the ground that whoever thought of it did not fully understand judicial review. Well, I of course can see that views may differ upon these matters, but the idea behind this subsection (1M), was to prevent the requirement of prima facie evidence, or sufficient evidence, coming in by a back door. Not to impose some special restriction on judicial review, but to prevent the substitution of a requirement of this kind in judicial review for the requirement that presently obtains in respect of the magistrate at Bow Street.
These are the procedures and I do not think, with respect, that anyone who has surveyed the judicial creativity that has been exemplified by the development of judicial review over the past period, particularly in England and Wales, can doubt the ability of the courts to secure justice in these matters. There is certainly no attempt in these clauses and these amendments in any way to limit or inhibit the courts' power to do that; to secure that the decision is reached in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play according to the rule of law.
The criticism that has been offered of these proposals as I understand it—and I think it would take me unduly long to deal with all of it in detail—is to some extent founded on the misapprehension that the case does not start with a judicial act in the foreign jurisdiction in a legal system which is
118
recognised as being a fair and reasonable legal system operating in that country. I think it is fair to say that over the years what has been called the prima facie rules as applied in practice has been found to give rise to extreme technicality. Various noble Lords have said that it is a simple requirement. It is not so simple to put into English and perhaps that is the reason why the phrase "prima facie rule", or "prima facie evidence", has been used instead of the English.
If one looks at the phrase "sufficient evidence to justify a committal for trial", or something of that kind, it must be sufficient in accordance with the laws of competency in English law, if we are dealing with a jurisdiction exercise at Bow Street. That is by no means a simple matter. Many technical questions have arisen, some of them reaching your Lordships' House in a judicial capacity. I think that I am entitled to say that the judgment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs is that the result of the technicalities that have been put in the way of foreign states in seeking extradition in this country is such that a considerable number of people who, in his judgment, if matters were regarded as dealt with on the basis of pure justice, should be extradited are not, in fact, extradited.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has reminded me that he earlier mentioned the figure seven. I intended to deal with that point in any event but perhaps I should deal with it now. The noble Lord said that if one looks at the results in Bow Street seven cases failed because of the absence of sufficient evidence. Most people who think of starting legal proceedings first see whether or not they are likely to succeed. If for some reason they conclude that they will not be successful then they do not start those proceedings. The noble Lord is referring to the lack of success in cases which have started. However, I do not think that there is any doubt that there are formidable difficulties in the way of foreign extradition of this kind.
One of the difficulties arises from the circumstance to which I have drawn attention and which, in my view, is fundamental. The process starts with an order of a foreign judicial official. That Government cannot influence the process. Can noble Lords imagine a Minister in this country telling the magistrate at Bow Street how to carry out his business? Equally, can noble Lords imagine a judge in a European country—let us say Switzerland—being told by the executive how to carry out his judicial business? There is no doubt that they have found it extremely difficult to present the material in a way which complies with the requirements of English law.
In case it is thought that the matter of prima facie evidence is fundamental to our system, it is worth pointing out, first, that in cases of extradition requested by the Republic of Ireland the prima facie rule does not apply. It is entitled to extradition on a backed warrant because of the history of our connection. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland will proceed on a proper judicial determination in this country. Therefore it is not correct to say that this requirement has been fundamental to all extradition. It is true to say that it has been a requirement under the Extradition Act

119
1870 and that a similar requirement arises under the Fugitive Offenders Act which applies in the Commonwealth.
That does not mean that there are no safeguards for individual liberty except the prima facie rule. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. When my noble friend Lord Caithness dealt with the matter in Committee and said the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, referred, he was referring to the fact that in Scotland committal before magistrates on the basis of prima facie evidence is not a requirement of proceeding to trial. The act of putting someone on trial in Scotland is essentially an administrative act of the law officers and their deputes. In practice in Scotland, as a result of long tradition, that has been thought to be a sufficient safeguard for not being put on trial improperly.
In this case we are saying that in the present state of the development of the law of a number of countries to which the provision would be applied, the stage has been reached when we have sufficient confidence in their procedures that warrants for committal will not be granted unless there are sufficient grounds to merit going to trial. That is what this matter is about: the preliminary stage enabling a trial to proceed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, the result may be an acquittal. In the same way, people in this country are committed to prison, their family life is severely disrupted by having to wait sometimes for a long period before going to trial (as anyone who knows about prison will confirm) and then they are perhaps acquitted.
Sadly, as a necessary consequence of seeking to do justice, the same may occur in the case of extradition. However, there is generally no greater hardship in that than there is in the situation that I have just described. In recent times the experience of extradition has shown that some foreign countries are more liberal as regards releasing people than procedures here would suggest. It is not without notice that some of those people extradited in connection with the case in Belgium have been released by the Belgian authorities, although they were committed by the authorities in this country in a case that eventually reached your Lordships' House.
In my submission to your Lordships, the principle that we are seeking to establish here is important in giving proper effect to the development of international co-operation in connection with the suppression of crime. It is a logical step when one recognises the strengths of the legal systems of others as well as our own. I believe that in order to accede to the convention it will not be necessary for us to accede to it fully. Of course, we could have a reservation but the real justification for this advance in our legislation is that the result will be effective. We want effective co-operation in relation to this matter across purely national boundaries, between legal systems with mutual respect for one another. For that reason I submit to your Lordships that the amendments in principle should be approved.
A good deal has been said by authorities entitled to great weight about the wording of Amendment
120
No. 10 relating to Clause 9 (1M). I have already explained to the House the purpose of that clause; namely, to prevent the requirement of what I have called prima facie evidence, or sufficient evidence, to be taken out by one hand and put back into judicial review by the other. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, it is not necessary if one properly understands what judicial review is about. It was included as a matter of caution in order to prevent it being thought that we were bringing in by the back door what we were taking out by the front door. However, if your Lordships see fit to decline to agree to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I shall undertake to look again at the wording of Clause 9 (1M) to see whether we can take account of the concerns which have been expressed in order that the principle which I have tried to describe comes through clearly and unambiguously. For those reasons I invite your Lordships not to agree to the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he prepared to give an undertaking to the House in regard to subsection (1M)? That will make a good deal of difference to the attitude that the House may take about a vote at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to give an undertaking to the House that we shall look again at the precise wording of Clause 10 (1M) in order to ensure that it has only the effect which I have sought to explain to your Lordships and not any greater effect. Such is the purpose that we had in mind in putting in Clause 10 (1M), and I certainly give that undertaking. I am of course asking your Lordships to decide now on the fundamental principle of these various amendments. However, I certainly undertake to reconsider the precise wording of Amendment No. 10 (1M).
Since the noble and learned Lord has kindly brought me to my feet, I should perhaps say something in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, who pointed out that these proposed amendments did not perhaps entirely meet with the specialties of the Scottish system. It will not surprise him to learn that, because of the history of extradition matters and the fact that so far they have been confined to Bow Street, the full detail of the Scottish aspect of these amendments has not been completely finalised. I hope that at Third Reading we shall be able to satisfy him in detail on that matter.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, having neither planned nor desired to open this debate, I find myself in the equally unsought position of replying to it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spelt out what I may call a paradigm of an extradition request commencing in Europe, in which the first step would be a judicial act. There would of course be an anti-judicial act and that would be the decision of the executive or the police authorities to set the procedure in motion. The matter would then come to this country.
From much that the noble and learned Lord said, I received the impression that he did not hold the

121
prima facie requirement in English law as a particular safeguard which he valued or cherished. The noble and learned Lord told the House that the prima facie safeguard does not apply in Scotland in ordinary criminal cases when the sheriff commits for jury trial in Scotland. Scotland departs from England in that, but for quite separate, historic reasons. It is quite different in extradition cases, because in extradition cases the prima facie requirement always applies.
Be that as it may, it is nothing to the point. The only concern that I should like to express in replying to this debate is whether the noble and learned Lord's reliance upon the absence of the prima facie safeguard in ordinary Scottish criminal cases indicates some lack of regard for the prima facie case in general and heralds an attempt in the future to remove the self-same safeguard in ordinary committals for trial in England.
I take it to be self-evident and not disputed by any serious argument advanced in this House that the prima facie safeguard is of great value. It applies in every domestic case in this country and there is no question of its being removed there. The proposed legislation to which we object will achieve a standard of justice enjoyed by our citizens in extradition cases lower than that which they enjoy in ordinary criminal cases in this country. Once that basic proposition is accepted, one must ask what principle of comity with our European friends requires us to remove a safeguard whose value everyone acknowledges.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, pointed out, there are many European countries that simply will not extradite their own nationals. Therefore, I ask why we should diminish a cherished and valued civil liberty which our nationals enjoy, when on the whole those countries to which we are referring will not extradite their nationals to us. We are willing to extradite our nationals to them, subject to the safeguard of the prima facie requirement.
In the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, raised the suggestion that this country is a haven for criminals. On that subject, I should have thought that the statistics obtained recently from Bow Street by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, are statistics which stand, so far as this debate goes, as unanswered and reassuring. All that is said is pure assertion, unsupported by anything that merits the name of evidence; namely, that there are applications that otherwise would be made but are not made by foreign countries because of the prima facie protection.
I find it an entirely plausible view that, ours being a country with sea boundaries and well-regulated airports, it simply does not have the same problems in that regard as have countries with borders that are more regularly and easily crossed. I do not for one minute accept that there is any evidence that this country is a ready haven for criminals in comparison with other European countries. I think it intrinsically likely that we are not. The figures put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for successful applications for extradition made by European countries to our courts show that, when those countries bestir themselves to comply with our
122
perfectly reasonable procedures, such applications are well able to succeed.
One comes to the provision that the Government have brought forward which was designed to meet the anxieties expressed from many quarters in the course of the debate in Committee. Looking at Amendment No. 10, subection (1B) reads:
"The person to whom such an order would relate shall have a right to make representations … as to why he should not be returned to the foreign state".
Having listened to the whole of this debate with a deal of care, I am left in some doubt about the content of the representations that that person may permissibly make.
Then subsection (1C) states:
"A notice under subsection (1A) above shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by subsection (1B)".
I think that, should someone who is responsible for carrying that injunction into effect set out to explain in ordinary language what the right consists of, he will have the gravest difficulty in explaining in ordinary language the content of that right.
I turn to the vexed subsection (1M). Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, I am bound to say that I too gave subsection (1M) precisely the sense that he did. I understood that it underscored the fact that the prima facie protection had gone and that the subsection was, as it were, for the avoidance of doubt; so that no one should think hereafter that the Secretary of State, as the recipient of the representations, could be placed in the position of the Bow Street magistrate and be required to hear and consider representations on the evidence. I understood from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that that is indeed the intention.
However, it is of course noteworthy that, as I understood him, that is not how the matter at first sight struck the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He rightly made the point that judicial review is not a modern panacea to achieve a new form of appeal in which the merits of the underlying decision under challenge are examined by the court. As the noble and learned Lord said, judicial review attacks the correctness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.
The noble and learned Lord's concern was that that provision would take away from the judicial review process the right to challenge the decision as irrational. But how does one attack a decision on the basis that it is irrational because there is no evidence to support it if the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consider the evidence? It is precisely because the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consider the evidence, that the decision of the Secretary of State cannot be challenged as irrational on the grounds that there is no evidence to support it.
It was precisely for that reason that when I ventured to open the debate I made the point that the House must recognise that if someone went along to the Secretary of State and made representations saying, "Well, here are signed statements from all manner of reputable witnesses who would like to be heard by you, if you will hear them, to demonstrate beyond peradventure that these assertions"—

123
because particulars are only assertions; they are not evidence—"are unfounded" the Minister would have to say something like, "Well, then, you cannot say that I am being irrational in saying that you must go there, because you put in front of me evidence which you say shows conclusively that you did not commit this offence. It is no part whatever of my function to consider all the evidence that goes to guilt or innocence. Therefore, because Parliament has legislated away the prima facie requirement—Parliament did not intend to retain it; Parliament did, indeed, put in subsection (1M), as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, correctly said in my submission, so as to underscore it—the prima facie requirement has gone. So I have considered your representations, to the extent that I can, but the one thing that I cannot consider is all the evidence that you would have me consider which goes to guilt or innocence."
I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that there were certain respects in which the Secretary of State would consider and evaluate evidence. I understood that to be in reply to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made. As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated—but I may be wrong—that where there was a pure issue of identification in a case, then the Secretary of State would consider evidence in relation to it. But, as I understood him, he was not saying that the Secretary of State would or, indeed, could consider evidence going to guilt or innocence in the generality of the case. That being so, I am left somewhat puzzled as to how the Secretary of State both could, and would, as regards the procedures that he would apply, consider evidence in relation to identification.
Therefore, I further invite the noble and learned Lord to say whether, in view of the doubts that have been expressed and the difficulties of interpretation that have arisen in relation to subsection (1M), and its precise scope in relation to the identification cases that the noble and learned Lord appeared to envisage, the proper course today would not be to press the amendment to a vote, but instead to take time for consultation and further consideration about the entire subject matter of Amendment No. 10.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: No, my Lords.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 194.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ardwick, L.

Amherst, E.

Aylestone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Barnett, L.

Annan, L.

Basnett, L.

124

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Chitnis, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cocks of Hartcliflfe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Claughton, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ypres, E.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Allerton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Astor, V.

Caccia, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Benson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Cathcart, E.

Blyth, L.

Chelmer, L.

Borthwick, L.

Chelwood, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Bramall, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

125

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Cowley, E.

Milverton, L.

Cox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Craigmyle, L.

Moran, L.

Craigton, L.

Morris, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mottistone, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Croft, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Dacre of Glanlon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

De La Warr, E.

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denning, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Donegall, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles, V.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Perth, E.

Elibank, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Radnor, E.

Ely, Bp.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E.

Reay, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Reigate, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renwick, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Salisbury, M.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Grimthorpe, L.

Shannon, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

Harvington, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Havers, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hertford, M.

Slim, V.

Hesketh, L.

Somers, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Hood, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Suffield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Swinfen, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Terrington, L.

Joseph, L.

Teviot, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Teynham, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimberley, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thurlow, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Torrington, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trafford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vinson, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waldegrave, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Westbury, L.

Manton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mar, C.

Wilberforce, L.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Marsh, L.

Wolfson, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Wynford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.5 p.m.
Clause 3 [General restrictions on return]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 47, leave out ("facts in respect of which his return was ordered") and insert ("particulars furnished under section 4(2)(b) below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments to which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 48, leave out from ("ordered") to end of line 3 on page 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intend to move this amendment, though it is not one of a group. I wonder whether it is right to move it at this stage. I understand that it is right, so I shall move it. Your Lordships will have to forgive me, because this amendment is not grouped with the others and is separate. Therefore I shall move it.
The amendment refers to Clause 3, which covers general restrictions on return. Your Lordships will have realised that the Secretary of State has overwhelming powers in a case where Clause 6(4), which we have been debating applies. He has power to issue an authority to proceed under Clause 4(1) on receiving a request from the foreign state on the particulars and facts supplied by that foreign state and, as we know, on no criteria and on no principle.
One of the basic safeguards of our extradition law for the past 100 years has been what is called the speciality rule, which is that a person shall not be charged with another and different offence from that on which the foreign state has put forward its case for extradition. In this Bill, under Clause 3(4), we see the speciality rule spelt out, and a person shall not be returned to a foreign state unless provision is made by the law of that state for securing that he will not be dealt with in that state for any offence committed before his return, other than,

"(a) the offence in respect of which his return is ordered;

(b) an offence … which is disclosed by the facts"

which have been put forward.
That is perfectly sensible and is a safeguard against a state asking for the extradition of someone on an inoffensive offence, and then when they get him back charging him with a far more serious offence or an offence of a completely different nature. But paragraph (c) of subsection (4) reads:
"subject to subsection (6) below"—
it need not worry us; it merely means that it must be lawful—
"any other offence being an extradition crime in respect of which the Secretary of State may consent to his being dealt with".
So in those few words the whole of the speciality rule is undermined. The Secretary of State on his own whim and off his own bat as it were may agree, in the case of someone who has been extradited, gone to the magistrates' court, and been committed of an offence of say, theft, to that person when he gets back to the foreign country, possibly being charged with rape, robbery or whatever. The speciality rule goes out of

127
the window. The purpose of this amendment is to leave out Clause 3(4)(c) which concerns the extra power given to the Secretary of State. That is an additional power. Having regard to the enormous powers which the Secretary of State already has, I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason for him to have that extra power. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, your Lordships in considering the previous group of amendments have just voted to remove the prima facie safeguard but in a limited class of case only. We have the assurance that the prima facie rule will only be abolished by Order in Council and in the case of states which are members of the Council of Europe and which adhere to the European convention. Therefore it is important to appreciate that the prima facie safeguard will remain in full force and effect in the case of extraditions to very many countries. We have extradition arrangements both with countries which do not adhere to the European convention and with other countries which we would not regard necessarily as democratic countries.
It must be appreciated that this power which is given to the Secretary of State is given in all cases. Our concern is whether Clause 3(4)(c) can make a nonsense of the prima facie rule in such cases. The court in the first instance considers carefully whether there is a prima facie case on the offence which is the subject matter of the request. If there is such a case and there is extradition, and the person going abroad is acquitted on the charge on which he was sent to face trial abroad, the Secretary of State has a power under Clause 3(7) to consent to that person being tried abroad, where he has just been acquitted on the charge on which he was sent, for more serious offences although those are charges where the prima facie safeguard would have applied had the foreign government applied for extradition on those charges in the first place. The important question which we think arises can be illustrated if I read Clause 3(6).
"The Secretary of State may not give consent under paragraph (c) of that subsection in respect of an offence in relation to which it appears to him that an order for the return of the person concerned could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made, in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act".
I invite your Lordships to focus on the words:
"or would not in fact be made".
The example that I am supposing is someone in respect of whom the requesting state has surmounted the prima facie requirement on one charge. The person goes out and is acquitted but the Secretary of State then consents to his facing other and, let us say, more serious charges abroad without returning a free man to this country. The Secretary of State cannot give his consent under paragraph (c) unless it appears to him that an order for the return of the person concerned,
"would not in fact be made"
in respect of the new charges.
The important question is: do the words
"or would not in fact be made"
mean that the Secretary of State has to put himself in the position of the Bow Street magistrate as if an extradition request were being heard by the Bow
128
Street magistrate and ask the same questions based on evidence which must be put before him as the Magistrate would have to ask in deciding whether there is a prima facie case? If the answer to that question is "Yes", this is a function judicial in nature where the Secretary of State must be considering and evaluating evidence. That we would say, is naturally a judicial and not an executive function.
But if the answer is "No" and he does not have to consider evidence in that sense in cases where the prima facie safeguard remains and will continue to remain after the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we call attention to the fact that the prima facie safeguard can be bypassed by the Secretary of State sanctioning further charges abroad which are not the subject of the initial request and are not the subject of any judicial proceedings. So the question to which we desire an answer and to which the House with respect is entitled to a clear explanation is: what is intended by this provision? Is the Secretary of State going to consider evidence in deciding whether the new offences proposed to be charged would not in fact be the subject of an order under this Act? Is he going to consider the evidence and if so in what form and in what manner?
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this provision is intended, as your Lordships have heard, to give the Secretary of State power to consent to a person who has been extradited being tried in the foreign country on another charge than that in respect of which his extradition has proceeded. A similar provision is a feature of the Fugitive Offenders Act as presently in force and it has been a feature of our arrangements with the Commonwealth for some 20 years. When these matters were under review, the possibility of making this change to our foreign extradition provisions was set out plainly in the 1985 Green Paper on extradition.
I think I am right in saying that every response which touched on this matter supported the policy we see reflected in Clause 3(4)(c). In other words it is a proper power for the Secretary of State to have. But it is thought right that that power should be restricted by the provisions of Clause 3(6) so as to make it plain that it is not a way round the provisions of the Extradition Act. That depends of course what those provisions actually are in relation to the particular foreign state in question. I venture the view that they are intended to prevent the Secretary of State consenting to a person who has been extradited being tried in the foreign country in respect of an offence which in his judgment would not succeed in procuring an order under the relevant provisions of the Extradition Act. Therefore, it is the Secretary of State who makes the judgment on the basis of the way the case appears to him. Subsection (6) states:
"The Secretary of State may not give consent under paragraph (c) of that subsection in respect of an offence in relation to which it appears to him that an order for the return of the person concerned could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made".
The words "could not" touch on full powers and the words "would not" touch on the particular circumstances as they appeared to the Secretary of State at the time his consent was asked for. I hope that answers the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.

129
Concerning the main principle of the amendment, my answer is that it seemed a reasonable provision to include; it is in the Commonwealth arrangements and everyone who commented on it seemed to think that it was a good idea. Therefore, not surprisingly, we put it into the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has further doubts on the matter, perhaps we may correspond between now and Third Reading. However, what I have said reflects my understanding of the effect of the provision.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, everyone does not agree that it is a good thing that the power should be in the Bill. Certainly two speakers in your Lordships' House do not agree. Under subsection (6) it is of course recognised that the power would not be used by the Secretary of State to get round the terms of the Bill. That was never thought to be its purpose. The mischief is that although this Secretary of State would not give his consent where it would be obviously unjust to do so, once again the subsection gives a power to whoever is the Secretary of State at the time. We object to the giving of that power.
Nevertheless, having regard to the long time which we have taken on previous amendments this afternoon, I should not wish to take the matter to a Division at this stage. Perhaps if there is further correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor we may find some developments at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that I shall copy to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, any correspondence that we may have on that particular question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Extradition request and authority to proceed]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("facts upon which and the law under") and insert ("offence of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 36, at end insert ("and copies of them shall be served on the person whose return is requested before he is brought before a court under section 6 below.
(2A) Rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 may make provision as to the procedure for service under subsection (2) above in England and Wales.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the amendments on which I relied in my defence as regards Amendment No. 2. It contains one of the expressed safeguards which we sought to add in order to make plain what we had in mind in relation to the general principle. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Proceedings for committal]:
[Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall give the person to whom an order under subsection (1) above would relate notice in writing that he is contemplating making such an order.
(1B) The person to whom such an order would relate shall have a right to make representations, at any time before the expiration of the period of 15 days commencing with the date on which the notice is given, as to why he should not be returned to the foreign state, and unless he waives that right, no such order shall be made in relation to him before the end of that period.
(1C) A notice under subsection (1A) above shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by subsection (1B) above.
(1D) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations made in the exercise of that right.
(1E) Any warrant under this section shall recite that the Secretary of State has considered any representations made in the exercise of that right before deciding to return the person to whom it relates to the foreign state.
(1F) A person shall not be returned in pursuance of any such warrant until the expiration of the period of 7 days commencing with the date on which the warrant is issued or such longer period as rules of court under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 may provide.
(1G) At any time within that period the person to whom the order would relate may apply for leave to seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to issue the order.
(1H) Unless the person to whom the order relates waives the right conferred on him by subsection (1G) above he may not be returned to the foreign state before the end of that period.
(1J) If he applies for judicial review, he may not be returned until the end of the proceedings for judicial review.
(1K) Proceedings for judicial review shall be treated for the purposes of this section as continuing until any appeal in those proceedings is disposed of: and an appeal shall be treated as disposed of at the expiration of the time within which the appeal may be brought or, where leave to appeal is required, within which the application for leave may be made, if the appeal is not brought or the application made within that time.
(1L) An order under this section shall set out in ordinary language the rights conferred by the two preceding subsections.
(1M) Judicial review may not be granted in respect of an order under this section on the ground that the Secretary of State did not have before him evidence sufficient to justify the making of the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, the amendment is the cornerstone of our attempt to meet the difficulties that were expressed at Committee stage. In my ardour to get to the argument on the main matter I omitted one or two preliminary matters which I had originally intended to mention.
The first matter is that all of your Lordships who had the pleasure of listening to my noble friend Lord Caithness dealing with the Bill up to this stage will have recognised what a tremendously powerful job he made of it. The only reason it was thought right for me to participate with him in certain matters which are subject to consideration on Report is that some of the questions are questions which depend to some degree on legal experience. My noble friend, with all his qualities, does not have that particular type of experience. Therefore, it was thought right that I might assist. As has been pointed out to me, he also comes from a good place and that is a great qualification. My mother came from the same place!
My other point is a reflection of something said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, concerning my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I believe that he was indicating that my right honourable friend had spent a good part of his life in the diplomatic service. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord was perhaps suspicious that the decisions of my right honourable friend on such matters were more influenced by his affinity to the Foreign Office than his desire to promote the rule of law in this country.
Perhaps I may say that I know from my own knowledge that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has personally considered all the matters that were raised at Committee stage on the Bill. In particular it is within my knowledge that he has carefully considered all the matters raised in connection with the main point which we have been discussing. He applied his own very considerable talents to deciding what should be done about those matters. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, it would not be right to say that he was influenced by anything other than the purest and highest consideration for the rule of law and justice in this country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not seeking to reopen issues which were discussed on the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, this afternoon. However, as we shall obviously be coming back on Third Reading to what appears as Amendment No. 10, and particularly to subsection (1M), I and many of my colleagues would be grateful if before the next stage of the Bill we could have a letter from the noble and learned Lord dealing with the three specific questions I asked. The first question concerns the Home Office and oral hearings when requested. Secondly, there is the question of whether the Secretary of State is prepared to set up a system whereby, in appropriate cases, he can appoint an adviser on a similar basis to that contained in the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Finally, there is the question of compensation. I am not asking for an immediate reply but I should be grateful for a reply before Third Reading.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I raise one matter for clarification. Should there not be spelt out, either in the amendment or elsewhere, a specific obligation on the Secretary of State to provide not only notice that he is contemplating making an order but the facts and the law relied on for the making of that order? There has been removed, by virtue of the previous amendments, the phrase:
"facts upon which and the law under"
and in its place we have only the word "offence". Unless there is a specific obligation spelt out, all that the defendant (if I may call him that) will get is a notice of the intention of the Secretary of State which will no doubt fill him with gloom but no wisdom. I suggest that there ought to be a specific provision, either continuing on from subsection (1A) in the amendment or elsewhere, that he is to be given particulars of the facts and the foreign law relied upon in support of the application.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the greater part of the amendment is to deal with points raised in Committee, in some of which I was involved, and which the noble Earl undertook to consider, I wish to express gratitude to him and to the Government. It shows that the time spent in Committee was far from wasted. It is also an indication of the sensitive and intelligent way in which my noble friend handled the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to underline any adjectives that are complimentary of the noble Earl. I do not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in admiring what has happened by way of amendment as a result of the discussion, but that is a side issue. We all admire the way in which the noble Earl has dealt with the Bill.
Perhaps I may add one question regarding the right of oral representation. Is it envisaged that there will be the right for legal representation also when the oral representations are made? One quakes to think of some poor individual being faced by the Secretary of State in person in order to make oral representations and finding that the lawyer he brought with him is asked to remain outside.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may attempt to deal with that when I deal with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
So far as concerns the question of my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, we had thought that point was covered by Clause 4 and Amendment No. 6. It may be that we can discuss the matter conveniently between now and Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Order for return to requesting state]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("may decide not to") and insert ("shall not").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 12 as the amendments go together.
Amendment No. 11 deals with the question of a person being sent back from this country to face the charge of committing an offence where the penalty may be or is a sentence of death. Under Clause 9, at page 9, certain matters are set out that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding whether to make the order. Clause 9(2) states:
"Without prejudice to his general discretion as to the making of an order for the return of a person to a foreign state under this Part of this Act".
Paragraph (a) states that,
"the Secretary of State shall not make an order in the case of any person if it appears".
There follow sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) as to the trivial nature of the offence, the passage of time and the question whether the accusation is not made

133
in good faith in the interests of justice. Paragraph (b) states:
"the Secretary of State may decide not to make an order for the return of a person accused or convicted of an extradition crime constituted by conduct not punishable with death in Great Britain if that person could be or has been sentenced to death for that offence in the state by which the request for his return is made".
The amendment seeks to alter the wording of paragraph (b) to read,
"the Secretary of State shall not make an order"
unless he receives a satisfactory undertaking from the state that the death penalty would not be carried out.
The amendment was moved in Committee and had some support, notably from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. In moving the amendment, I am much encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has added his name to the list of those who support it.
The Minister's attitude in Committee was as follows. Whereas he had the greatest sympathy with the intention of the amendment, he could not accept it because of the federal nature of the United States legal system. In fact, this was the kind of undertaking that the Government would seek from the federal authority in America, but that authority would be unable constitutionally to give the assurance that Amendment No. 11 seeks to include in the Bill. All the Government could do was to ask the federal government in America to undertake to convey the wishes of the Government of the United Kingdom to the relevant judge at the trial, which in the normal way was what happened. As we have abolished capital punishment, I suggest that it would strengthen the hand of the Government if there was a statutory obligation to seek an undertaking.
Secondly, Article 11 of the convention specifically says that extradition may be refused by the requested state unless the requesting state,
"gives such assurance as the requested party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out".
Why should we not include this in the Bill on the basis that this country would ask to be given such assurance as we consider sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out?
Thirdly, a number of countries have entered reservations to the convention to this specific effect. I need quote only that of Austria, which states:
"Austria will refuse extradition requested in order to carry out the death penalty. Extradition will only be granted if the requesting state accept the condition that the death penalty will not be pronounced".
Austria and certain other countries have done that. I ask forensically whether those countries are havens for American murderers.
When the United States Government apply for the extradition of a citizen from one of the states in America, as I understand it, the federal government do so on behalf of the attorney-general of the state concerned. Under the attorney-general comes the district attorney. It is he who will or will not demand the death penalty at the trial of the person in question. I ask the Government why the federal government should not ask the attorney-general of the state for whom he is acting for an undertaking that the death penalty will not be invoked.
Finally, murder is one of the few offences for which we have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Therefore, we should be in the same position in this case as those countries who, in fact, have entered a reservation. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two words. I had intended to add my name to Amendment No. 11 as well as No. 12 to make sense, but no doubt if it was agreed in principle the parliamentary draftsman would not accept any of the drafting, so perhaps it does not matter all that much.
I am not unfamiliar with the United States' judicial system and I well recognise that it presents problems, but I still cannot see why the federal Government should not tell the state concerned that it will not have the individual sent back to it unless it can give an undertaking that he would not be executed. If that undertaking is given by or on behalf of the US Attorney-General, or by or on behalf of the governor, and there is then a change of governor—a point made at the Committee stage—I find it difficult to believe that even in the United States such an undertaking would not be honoured by his successor or, at the very least, that it would not be an undertaking good enough to meet the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, I hope, therefore, that whatever the wording and however it is expressed in the statute, this point can be met.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I support the two amendments which have been moved. I hope and expect that the United States' authorities will find a means of ensuring that what we have in mind will be carried out. As I shall visit the United States to celebrate the bicentennial of the American constitution in two days' time, I shall mention that we shall expect them to do their stuff on this important matter.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I believe that on the whole this country has generally recognised that to take somebody out in cold blood and kill him is indecent. To send him away for somebody else to kill is even more indecent. I believe that if we cannot explain that simple proposition to the Americans, our alliance would be imprudent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that it is of value for me to go over the ground that was covered in Committee on this point and the matter does not really arise under the European convention. It is in the United States that the problem has arisen and it arises from the federal nature of the United States. As I understand the position, the federation, the United States, is the requesting state for extradition and is not able, according to our information, to give an undertaking that the state concerned will, in fact, not carry out the death penalty on someone extradited and facing a capital charge.
What happens in practice is that in deciding that but for this difficulty, extradition would be proper, the Secretary of State attempts to extract such an undertaking. As has been said, the most he has been

135
able to achieve is a statement that the views of the requested state—namely, ourselves—will be put before the judicial authorities of the state concerned in the United States which is dealing with this specific offence.
In practice, so far that has been sufficient to prevent the dreaded result, even on conviction. But it is recognised that it is not so guaranteed that an arrangement of this kind would meet the statute, if amended in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Therefore, with the present United States arrangements, if this amendment were to be approved, I think it would mean that the Secretary of State could not lawfully agree to send anyone facing a capital charge back if the offence arose in a state where, at that time, capital punishment was being exacted. As your Lordships know, the state can change these arrangements.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is going to America soon, and knowing his powerful Welsh eloquence, he may well be able to produce a change in the arrangements in the United States which will mean that we can reasonably accept this amendment. It is imposing rather a heavy timetable on him, but if the result were to come through in time for Third Reading, obviously the matter could be reconsidered.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I believe it would be mildly surprising were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to be as speedily successful as that. I believe that most of us recognise the problem, which I know has been discussed before, and I do not doubt that the Home Office has, as on a number of previous occasions, tried to do something about this and come up against this substantial obstacle of the division of powers between federal states and the United States government.
The only matter which does trouble me, as I am sure it troubles the noble and learned Lord, the present Home Secretary, and will no doubt trouble future Home Secretaries, is what happens in the future if a district judge in one state decides, notwithstanding the view of the State Department, to execute the person who has been extradited. I consider that that would cause very substantial problems, to put it mildly, with regard to Parliament. It would have a rather more substantial effect on the person who had been extradited in the belief that he would not be subject to capital punishment.
I recognise, of course, that this matter has been looked at on a number of occasions but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to take into account some of the arguments put forward; notably that of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has substantial experience as former permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office. Perhaps we can then see whether at some later stage during the progress of this Bill through Parliament we can arrive at a form of words which will not create the sort of mischief described by the noble and learned Lord himself but nevertheless will guarantee that we do not
136
have this appalling consequence which arises if someone is subjected to capital punishment. I believe that that is a modest request and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will respond favourably.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no one knows more about these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, learned as he is with his experience at the Home Office. His remarks and those of other noble Lords who have spoken will be taken into consideration by my right honourable friend. This has been before my right honourable friend on a number of occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said. Certainly, until now, we have not been able to find an answer but we are not giving up. If the assurance that we will continue to look for a solution is acceptable, no doubt the noble Lord will feel able to act accordingly.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I may add one other matter to help him in his resolve not to give up and as an increased incentive to incorporate such an undertaking into the Bill. He will probably know that two cases certainly have been taken to the Court of Human Rights. One of them failed on a technicality and the other seemed to be progressing well when the applicant decided he would rather return to be executed, and the whole matter was brought to an end. There is now, in fact, a third case going to the court and it might avoid yet another situation in which something like this has had to be put into a Bill because of the decision of the Court of Human Rights. That might be an added incentive. The noble and learned Lord might send his Welsh envoy with a packet in his pocket to give him extra power when he gets there. In those circumstances, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Restrictions upon proceedings fir other offences]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("on which his return is grounded") and insert ("in respect of which he was returned")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment follows Amendment No. 1. The same principle applies and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("facts") and insert ("particulars furnished to the foreign state").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this again is an application of the principle that I sought to explain in relation to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [First-hand hearsay]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 4, after ("below") insert—
("(aa) to paragraph 1A of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1986 (evidence given orally at orginal trial to be given orally at retrial);").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, In moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 20 and 136. These amendments are consequential on the provision to which we agreed in Committee, that the Court of Appeal should have power to order a retrial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Report stage interrupted.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,

Dyfed Act.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
6.55 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 21.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 9, at end insert ("if—

(i) the requirements of one of the paragraphs of subsection 1(A) below are satisfied; or

(ii) the requirements of subsection (1B) below are satisfied.

(1A) The requirements mentioned in subsection (1)(i) above are—

(a) that the person who made the statement is dead or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit to attend as a witness;

(b) that—

(i) the person who made the statement is outside the United Kingdom; and

(ii) it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance;

(c) that the person who made the statement cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he made the statement and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statement; or

(d) that, all reasonable steps have been taken to find the person who made the statement, but that he cannot be found.

(1B) The requirements mentioned in subsection (1)(ii) above are—

(a) that the statement was made to a police officer or some other person charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders; and

(b) that the person who made it does not appear to give oral evidence because he is kept out of the way by means of the procurement of a person accused in the proceedings in which the statement is sought to be admitted or on behalf of such an accused person.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have reached Part II of the Bill, and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 21. An amendment moved in Committee, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, put our names, sought to remove Clause 21 from the Bill. At that stage, we urged that the clause was far too broadly drawn in relation to hearsay
138
evidence. We were arguing that to mitigate the rule against hearsay was acceptable and sensible and that to permit documentary hearsay in fraud trials was clearly to be desired, but that to destroy the hearsay rule altogether was to damage irretrievably the fairness of the criminal trial and to undermine the principle or orality and the essential right of all parties in a criminal trial to test evidence by cross-examination.
The Minister defended the clause. But, at the end of the debate, in that co-operative spirit which we so much appreciate when, on rare occasions, we see it, he said that he would be willing to work towards a half-way house. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, also expressed himself willing to give his blessing to any half-way house solution that left his precious fraud documents intact.
The Minister has been as good as his word. I understand that he is willing to accept these amendments in the form in which they appear on the Marshalled List. They incorporate into Clause 21 the conditions and safeguards already to be found in Section 68(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those appear in Amendment No 16 at subsections (1A) and (1B). Your Lordships will see that the requirement necessary before hearsay evidence will be allowed in are,

(a) that the person who made the statement is dead or by reason of his bodily or mental condition unfit to attend as a witness;

(b) that—

(i) the person who made the statement is outside the United Kingdom; and

(ii) it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance;

(c) that the person who made the statement cannot reasonably be expected … to have any recollection of the matters, … or

(d) that, all reasonable steps have been taken to find the person who made the statement, but that he cannot be found.

Further, subsection (1B) requires,
"that the statement was made to a police officer … and that the person who made it does not appear to give oral evidence because he is kept out of the way by means of the procurement of a person accused in the proceedings".
You Lordships will see that instead of the matter being at large, as it was in the original version of the Bill, this provision gives us the safeguards that we sought in Committee. We appreciate the efforts that the Minister has made to reach a sensible consensus on Clause 21. Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 affect Clause 22. That clause deals with business documents. Clause 24 deals with statements in documents that appear to have been prepared for purposes of a criminal trial; that is, documents such as depositions or notes in police officers' notebooks and the like, but not those appearing in Part III of the Bill—letters of request and experts' reports.
We were troubled in Committee that the judge's inclusionary discretion in relation to such documents was far too wide. Amendment No. 21 incorporates into this stage the safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to which I have just referred. Once again, I understand that the Minister finds these amendments satisfactory. In all the circumstances, I have great pleasure in moving the amendment. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister for having co-operated as he has. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches we would also like to refer to the procedure which was adopted, so helpfully, by the noble Earl following upon our proceedings in Committee. He was good enough to write to all those who participated in the debate and was kind enough to suggest the very wording of this amendment. We are deeply grateful to him for having done so. That allowed us to put forward an amendment which has met with the agreement of the House.
The only observation I would make—obviously, we are all in favour of the amendment now—is that he might care between this stage and Third Reading to look at the wording of subsection (1B)(b) of Amendment No. 16. If your Lordships would kindly refer to that wording, you may find it is as abstruse as I, as a lawyer, have. I shall read it to the House:
"that the person who made it does not appear to give oral evidence because he is kept out of the way by means of the procurement of a person accused in the proceedings in which the statement is sought to be admitted or on behalf of such an accused person."
I think that it will take a great deal of interpretation before one gets at the real meaning of that subsection although one knows its intention. Without wishing to waste any more time in regard to an amendment to which we all agree, I merely suggest that between now and Third Reading the Minister may wish to look at the wording to see if it can be simplified.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I spoke in Committee to the subject matter of Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. We are glad that the Minister has thought again on this subject. We would have preferred not to have Clause 21 in the Bill at all because we felt that other clauses broadened the rules of admissibility as much as was necessary. The adoption of these restrictions on the adducing of hearsay evidence makes Clause 21 a good deal better than it was.
In Committee I said that trials on paper must on the whole represent second-rate justice. Some of your Lordships were dismissive of that and suggested that the whole principle of orality had been demolished by irrefutable logic. We are glad that that somewhat advanced position has not found favour with the Government and that they have been persuaded to follow a middle way.
For ourselves we believe that after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and after this Bill has passed into law, it will be right to leave undisturbed the question of hearsay in criminal cases for some considerable time in order to see how these far-reaching changes operate in practice. The general principle must be that hearsay evidence should only be admitted in criminal cases where really necessary.
As regards Amendment No. 19, we are equally glad to know that the Government have accepted that essentially the same restrictions should apply to statements prepared for criminal proceedings and investigations.
I add my own voice to that of my noble friend Lord Mishcon with reference to the expression of Clause 21(1B)(b) and the words:
"because he is kept out of the way by means of the procurement of a person accused in the proceedings".
140
It is scarcely the most elegant form of language. Perhaps that mode of expression should be considered in the name of elegantia juris.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when we debated this group of clauses in Committee there was a wide measure of agreement that the law governing the admissibility in evidence of documents which we described in shorthand as "business documents" was too strict. That had been the conclusion of the fraud trial committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, made powerful speeches in that respect at the Committee stage. There, was therefore no disagreement about the need for Clause 22 as a means of allowing the courts to receive all the relevant documentation in cases such as the fraud cases with which the noble and learned Lord's Committee had been concerned.
There was however a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and others that Clause 21 went too far in allowing the admissibility on identical criteria of other kinds of documents. Again in shorthand we described them as historic documents where their content was within the direct knowledge of their maker.
It was also argued that although it created a strong presumption against the admission of documents prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings and investigations, Clause 24 was too tightly drawn.
I undertook to consider both of those points. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has said, there has since been some discussion between him and the Government and others of your Lordships. The result is that I am ready to accept the amendments which he has moved this evening with his customary eloquence.
Their effect would be considerably to tighten Clause 21 and by an indirect route Clause 24. To be admissible under Clause 21 an historic document would have to satisfy one of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred. For a court to have even the residual opportunity provided by Clause 24 to allow the admission of a witness statement in the interests of justice it would need to satisfy one of the same conditions.
There would therefore be three classes of documents; business documents, which would be readily admissible subject only to the discretion in Clause 23 to exclude them in the interests of justice; historic documents, which would be admissible only if they fulfil one of the new conditions; and witness statements, which would have to jump the same hurdle. Even then they would be admissible only when the court decided that they should be admitted exceptionally in the interests of justice.
I believe it would have been wrong to exclude altogether the murdered's wife's diary to which reference was made in our debates in Committee, or the statement made to the police by the witness who subsequently dies or is intimidated.
Amended as proposed by the noble Lord, the provisions will I think strike a sensible balance, on the one hand ensuring the admissibility of reliable documents in evidence, and on the other hand preserving the oral tradition of our system of trial.

141
That brings me to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is said that some modern parliamentary draftsmen are a little obscure. This is not the work of modern parliamentary draftsmen. As the noble Lords opposite will know better than the wording is drawn from the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and it has been on the statute book for some 62 years. Nevertheless, let me look at that particular point again.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the fact that something was drawn in a somewhat mysterious, ambiguous and devious way in 1925 ought to give us, a far better Parliament than the one which operated at that time, an opportunity of correcting the language.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Business etc. documents]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 15, line 14, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 14, after ("below") insert—
("(aa) to paragraph 1A of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) a statement prepared otherwise than under section 27, 28 or 29 below for the purposes—

(a) of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings; or

(b) of a criminal investigation,

shall not be admissible by virtue of subsection (1) above unless—

(i) the requirements of one of the paragraphs of subsection (1A) of section 21 above are satisfied; or

(ii) the requirements of subsection (1B) of that section are satisfied.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Principles to be followed by court]:
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 16, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) to the reasons why it is proposed that the person making the statement shall not give oral evidence;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this amendment quite shortly. In Clause 23 we are dealing with matters to which the court must have regard in exercising its exclusionary discretion to allow evidence under Clauses 21 and 22.
Your Lordships will see that under Clause 23(2) the matters set out under (a) (b)(c) and (d) are those to which the court must have regard in exercising its discretion. They cover the nature and the source of
142
the document with a view of the likelihood of it being authentic. Subsection (2)(b) says:
"to the extent to which the statement appears to supply evidence which would otherwise not be readily available;"
(a) to the relevance of the evidence…
(d) to any risk, having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the statement if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence".
and whether that would be unfair to the accused.
The amendment seeks to add to paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) what is really the most important consideration of all in our submission, and that is the reason why it is proposed that the person making the statement shall not in fact give oral evidence. That ground surely should be included if these grounds are to be satisfied.
In Committee the Minister took the view that the matter was really covered by Clause 23(1) which begins:
"If, having regard to all the circumstances".
It would be covered by those words and also by the words of Clause 23(2) (b):
"the extent to which the statement supplies evidence which would otherwise not be readily available."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, supported this amendment in Committee and in his robust way used these words:
"If I were [sitting in a trial] … the first thing I should ask myself is: 'Why won't this chap come?".—[Official Report, 20:10/87; col. 98.]
Those few words express much better than I can the point of the amendment. I am inclined to amend the noble and learned Lord's words and ask why will the Minister not agree? In those circumstances I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have once again listened carefully to what the noble Lord has to say on this point, but I regret that I am still not convinced that the substance of his point is not already provided for. We have already discussed amendments to the earlier clauses which are intended to ensure that documents admissible under Clauses 21 and 24 will not replace oral evidence where that evidence is available. Secondly, I stand by what I said in Committee which is that under Clause 23(1), in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to exclude a document which is admissible under Clauses 21 or 22, the court is to have regard to all the circumstances. This can include factors such as those that the noble Lord referred to in moving his amendment.
Thirdly—and this was also mentioned in Committee—subsection (2)(b) refers to the extent to which the statement in the document provides evidence which otherwise would not be readily available. This expresses the same thought more generally. As I explained at the earlier stage, I believe this wording is more helpful than the noble Lord's amendment. If the court's attention were drawn specifically to, as it were, the excuses for a particular witness not attending court, there is, it seems to me, a risk that the argument will focus on that aspect even where, as is the case with many routine business documents, it is scarcely reasonable to expect the person who made them to come to court.
I believe that the three safeguards that are now in the Bill are quite sufficient and I remain persuaded

143
not to accept the arguments and therefore to resist the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am certainly disappointed because I would have suggested that when one is laying down a duty in a statute it is better to express explicitly what that duty is rather than to express it by implication. However, I do not wish to batter my head against a brick wall. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Documentary evidence—supplementary]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 109, line 22, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24. These amendments take forward an undertaking I gave during the Committee stage, to reflect on the questions of legal representation and opportunity for cross-examination by the accused, when evidence is taken from a witness overseas under a letter of request. As I explained then, the Bill provides that in assessing the weight to be given to evidence taken abroad, the court should have regard to whether there was an opportunity for questions to be put to the person giving evidence.
This can now he found in Schedule 2. We had, however, decided that it was a sufficiently important consideration to bear directly on the admissibility of evidence taken following a letter of request under Clause 27, and for it therefore to be set out in the body of the clause. In our debates in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, argued that specific provision should be made for the defendant to be legally represented and to have an opportunity for cross-examination. As I said then, no provision would be necessary in our law to enable this to happen. If the purpose was to require it to happen, it would be purporting, in our law, to lay down the procedures to be followed by foreign countries, procedures which in some cases they might, for reasons to be found in their own law, be simply unable to meet.
However, I agree with the noble Lord that there will be some cases, where an accused person had been identified, in which there will be a strong argument for his being represented and for questions to be put to the witnesses on his behalf. The amendments are intended to respond to that concern. The effect will be, as I have said, to transfer the existing provision from Schedule 2 to Clause 27. More important, however, it now includes a specific reference to whether the local law allowed the parties to the proceedings to be legally represented. This means that in deciding under Clause 23 whether to admit or exclude the product of a letter of request, the court's attention would be specifically directed to these two factors—the opportunity for legal representation and cross-examination. That seems to us to be the right approach to what I recognise is a genuine concern. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment and expressing my gratitude to the Minister once again for having come a long way along the road to deal with what appeared to be a requirement which ought to be in the Bill. I am very happy to support it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we on these Benches also support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful. The wound is healed between the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson and myself. We started off well; we went astray a little on the last amendment, but this amendment heals the wound and I am grateful for the comments he made and also for those of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Issue of letters of request]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 18, line 33, at end insert—
("(6) In exercising the discretion conferred by section 23 above in relation to a statement contained in evidence taken in pursuance of a letter of request, the court shall have regard—

(a) to whether it was possible to challenge the statement by questioning the person who made it; and

(b) to whether the local law allowed the parties to the criminal proceedings to be legally represented when the evidence was being taken.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Earl moves the next amendment when is it the intention to rise for dinner? We are about to start on a significant number of very important amendments dealing with videos and related matters. I do not know the Government's intention.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the next amendment should not lead to any debate, but I agree that Amendment No. 26 onwards, will do so and I would suggest that those amendments should be deferred until after dinner.
Clause 30 [Evidence through video links]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 12, leave out ("video").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential to amendments that I accepted in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps this is an opportune moment to adjourn consideration on Report. I suggest that we should not come back to this matter until 25 minutes past eight.
I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Limited Credit Facilities) Order 1987
7.20 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the draft order be approved I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak also to the Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987.
Nearly a year has now passed since the Building Societies Act 1986 came into force. The intervening period has seen many changes in the financial background against which the Act was conceived, not least in the evolution of the functions undertaken by building societies. The Act enabled societies to provide a number of services for the first time, and I believe that they have risen to the challenge. The range of new activities permitted from January this year under the new Act was quite extensive and included lending on non-residential property; unsecured lending; ownership of land; wider borrowing from wholesale markets; money transmission services; provision of personal pensions and PEPs; and the ownership of estate agents.
There are two orders before the House. Both are intended to remove certain restrictions currently placed on building societies by the Building Societies Act as it now stands, and which the Government believe to be unnecessary. Societies have had for some time the power to issue credit cards, acting as agents for banks, and a number of building societies already issue such cards to their customers. Under this arrangement it is the banks, not the building societies, which provide the credit to card users. The building societies are not currently directly involved in the transaction.
Section 16 of the Building Societies Act 1986 gave building societies the right to extend unsecured personal loans. It was assumed that they would be able to act as principals rather than just agents in issuing credit cards. But they have been prevented from doing so by a technical problem in the way the Act is drafted. The Act sets a limit of £5,000 on the total amount of unsecured lending to any individual. This does not cover the situation where a borrower deliberately or inadvertently exceeds his credit limit. Should that happen, a society would automatically be acting ultra vires, even if it immediately took steps to recover the situation. Societies cannot take that risk. So they cannot issue credit cards as principals.
The same problem applies to certain other transactions, particularly those relating to electronic funds transfer. The Building Societies (Limited Credit Facilities) Order removes this problem. The £5,000 limit is retained but societies will not be acting ultra vires if they take steps within a reasonable time to remedy the situation by recovering the debt. I think this is a sensible step and one which societies will welcome. The Building Societies Commission will expect credit card lending by societies to be subject to rigorous credit assessment procedures and will take a particular interest in societies' systems in this area of lending as part of their normal prudential supervision.
The second of these two orders will allow building societies to provide their customers with advice on a wide range of investments, such as gilts, equities and debentures. Societies are currently restricted to providing investment advice on insurance and their own products. This includes advice on unit trust linked life assurance and on personal equity plans, but not on unit trusts generally. The order will also correct an unexpected effect of the Act which requires building societies—alone among financial intermediaries—to channel customers' unit trust orders through a stockbroker. The order provides that customers' orders may be passed direct to the fund manager.
These orders are intended to have the effect of allowing building societies to provide their customers with a better service, by developing societies' range of personal financial services. It should increase consumer choice and hence be a useful competitive stimulus to banks and other financial institutions now operating in these fields.
There has been some debate about the extent and nature of the financial services that building societies should be able to provide and, as your Lordships will be aware, the Economic Secretary last month announced a review of Schedule 8 to the Building Societies Act, which lists these services. This will do two things. First, it will examine how far the structure of Schedule 8 can be revised so that it describes in broad terms what societies can do and specifies within that those activities which are expressly forbidden. This would change the presumption at the margin that societies can do things rather than that they cannot do them, and hopefully remove as far as possible many of the irritations societies have experienced in operating within their new powers.
The review will also consider the various requests societies have made for extensions of their powers into new areas. Any change to Schedule 8 will require an affirmative order to be debated in this House. It is hoped that this order can be brought forward early in the new year. In the meantime, I commend these orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord's customary calm will not in any way suffer by my assurance that we support him in these orders. In regard to the first one to which he referred, I have very little to add to the comments that were made in another place by Mr. Chris Smith, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. In general, we support this new action which to some extent extends the powers, the competence and indeed the opportunities available to building societies. They have suffered one or two reverses over the past two or three months, or perhaps even longer, when large sums were withdrawn in order that members could invest in privatisation equities.
Happily, in a number of cases, after having sold their shares in the privatised industries they returned their funds to the building societies. I am quite sure that this militates to the stability of the savings movement of this country and acts as a salutary

147
check against undue and speculative adventures into the privatised equity market. We give our blessing to the first order.
Although we support the second order in general, there remain one or two matters to be cleared up, which I am quite sure the noble Lord will be able to do. Paragraph 3 of the order states:
"The list of services in Part I of Schedule 8 to the Act shall be varied by the addition of the following
"after the service numbered 6—
'6A. Giving investment advice.
6B. Arranging for the provision of units in a unit trust scheme."'.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that polarisation still applies to the building societies and that the building societies can choose either 6A or 6B, or, if they elect to choose both, that 6B shall not apply to those building societies that are themselves owners of or linked with specific unit trust schemes. The noble Lord will agree that within the general provisions of the Financial Services Act it would be against the principle of polarisation that building societies should be able to recommend their own unit trusts. I should be glad if the noble Lord could give me some assurance on that point.
The next matter relates to paragraph 4 of the order, which states:
"Part III of Schedule 8 to the Act shall be varied by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 5—
'Giving investment advice.
5A. The power to give investment advice is restricted to giving advice to individuals."'.
The term "individuals" within the Building Societies Act 1986 shines out like an occasional beacon. Throughout the Act, apart from Section 76(9) and Section 83, the first two subsections, the Act refers to "persons". Your Lordships will be aware that under the interpretation of legislation Act 1979 "persons" has a vastly different connotation from "individuals". "Persons" encompasses even bodies corporate. So far as I can see from the interpretation clause of the Building Societies Act 1986, "individuals" is nowhere defined.
This is important for this reason. If your Lordships will recall, "individuals" are referred to in Schedule 8 at paragraph 2 of Part III, which refers to foreign exchange. It says:
"The provision of foreign exchange services is restricted to their provision to individuals".
But the term "individuals" in connection with foreign exchange may surely be somewhat different from investment advice. Investment is rather different from foreign exchange dealings.
What happens, for example, where a husband and wife have a joint portfolio? Is the joint portfolio of husband and wife to be denied advice? What happens to the trustee or trustees of funds? Does the term "individuals" cover that?
These may appear to be somewhat carping criticisms, but the function of your Lordships' House in these matters is to be particular and to elicit information on particular points. They are not raised in any mood of censoriousness so far as concerns the noble Lord but merely to elicit information for clarification. On the assumption that the noble Lord
148
is able to provide the information in response to the questions I ventured to lay before your Lordships, we shall of course on this side of the House support both these statutory instruments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He brought up two points. I shall take up his point on polarisation first of all. At present, building societies are empowered under the Building Societies Act to give advice on insurance products but cannot themselves underwrite insurance or offer insurance-linked products.
They can also give advice on any of their own products, including those such as unit-linked personal pensions which are investments under the Financial Services Act. Building societies are covered by the terms of the Financial Services Act to the extent that they are engaged in investment business. Both unit trusts and many forms of insurance are investment businesses. Giving advice on those products therefore falls within the ambit of the SIB rules.
The order allows societies to give advice on all investment products; that is, investment as defined in the Financial Services Act. They will therefore be able to advise inter alia on all unit trust products as well as on insurance products. This will unequivocally allow them to become independent intermediaries under the SIB rules.
Most large building societies are expected to become independent intermediaries. To date only one, the Abbey National, has opted to be a tied agent, in this case to the Friends' Provident. Societies acting as independent intermediaries which wish to offer their own investment products—that is, unit-linked personal pensions—will have to offer their products through subsidiaries.
Branch staff giving advice on investments generally will not be permitted to advise on societies' own unit trust linked personal pension products. Rather, they will have to refer customers interested in this product to a subsidiary. Therefore, polarisation does apply but the societies can offer both those matters listed under 6A and 6B. Those in 6B merely mean that the societies can pass unit trust orders directly to unit trust managers when acting as an agent. But if it is a question of advice on unit trust investments, polarisation does apply.
I now take the second point raised by the noble Lord on "individuals". "Individuals" means individual members of the public, not companies, both for foreign exchange and investment advice. Husband and wife would mean the same as an individual member of the public. There are a number of restrictions placed on the societies' provision of these services. For example, the provision of unit linked personal pensions, personal equity plans, and estate agency services must be done through a subsidiary, as I have already said.
The power to arrange foreign exchange in investment services can only be provided to individuals; that is, not to the corporate sector. The power to manage land as an agent is restricted to residential land. There are various reasons for these

149
restrictions; for example, to prevent societies from engaging in property speculation and to avoid conflicts of interests for societies' staff. I hope that I have answered the two points raised by the noble Lord, but if I have not no doubt he will now let me know.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. There is just one point he has not dealt with; that is, the trustees. Are they incorporated as an individual?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if the noble Lord finds it acceptable perhaps I may look more carefully into that matter and write to him as soon as possible as I do not have an answer with me on that point. Perhaps he will find it possible to take that course this evening.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should be obliged if he would place a copy of the letter in the Library at the same time.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I shall do that. I commend this order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Provision of Services) (No. 3) Order 1987
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Beaverhrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Charges) Order 1987
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the draft order implements the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales in its report on 21 constituencies in South Wales. The draft order was laid before the House on 9th July. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order.
We are considering here tonight the recommendations arising from an interim review carried out by the Welsh Boundary Commission, which has the duty of keeping the distribution of seats in Wales under continuous review. The commission completed its last general review of Wales in 1983, and its next report covering the whole country is due between 1993 and 1998. In the intervening period, however, the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales has led to changes being made in local authority boundaries so that they no longer coincide with constituency boundaries. The commission has been working to remove these anomalies, which can cause inconvenience and
150
confusion to electors, local authorities and political organisations.
Articles 2 to 6 of the draft order substitute the constituencies in the schedule (which are those recommended by the commission) for those set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983. Article 1(3) enables the order to come into force when it is made by Her Majesty in council, although the new constituencies will not come into being until a general election is called. Any by-elections in the meantime will be held on the existing boundaries.
The order includes 21 constituencies in South Wales. The commission published its proposals in July 1986. Nine representations were made, four of which resulted in the holding of a public inquiry into the commission's proposals for Gower, Neath, Swansea East and Swansea West. The major issue considered by the assistant commissioner at the inquiry was whether the community ward of Trebanos should be placed with the rest of the community of Pontadawe in Neath, as the commission proposed, or remain in Gower. The assistant commissioner upheld the commission's recommendations, and these are before your Lordships' House tonight.
The Home Secretary has not received any representations about the recommendations in this report, which, with the exception of the proposals for Trebanos ward that were examined at the public inquiry, are the minimum necessary to realign the constituency and local authority boundaries. In most cases few electors are affected, ranging from none to 386. Four constituencies will have larger net movements of electors; Gower will lose 2,644 and Swansea West 1,493. Swansea East will gain 2,803 and Neath 940.
I invite your Lordships to approve this draft order for implementing the commission's proposals in full.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th July be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation of the terms of the draft Order in Council. It springs from the report of the Boundary Commission for Wales dated 8th May 1987.
As the Minister has explained, the local government Boundary Commission for Wales had already altered some local authority boundary in South Wales, with the result that they diverged from the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. This order realigns the constituency boundaries with the altered local government boundaries. Some of the changes do not affect any electors because they relate to empty land. Indeed, most of the changes affect few electors, but one of the changes has caused disappointment and controversy and I should like to say a few words about it.
The Minister has anticipated that my area of concern is the Welsh speaking community of Trebanos in the Swansea valley. The Order in Council involves the transfer of approximately 1,200 electors in the community ward of Trebanos from the present constituency of Gower to the Neath parliamentary constituency. As I understand it, the majority of the residents of Trebanos do not like their transfer to

151
Neath one bit. Apart from the Government's party, every political party objected to the proposed transfer. The borough council of Lliw opposed the transfer. The Member of Parliament for the Gower constituency lodged a petition objecting to the transfer signed by approximately 797 of the residents.
The good people of Trebanos base their objection on the grounds that Trebanos has a greater affinity of interest with the Gower constituency than with the Neath constituency. As the Minister has pointed out, the assistant commissioner held a local inquiry. He accepted as a fact that there was a substantial body of opinion in the ward in favour of remaining in the present Gower constituency. Nevertheless, he upheld the commission's proposal because he could attach only limited weight to the petitioners' preferences "expressed without reasons" (those are his words) as distinct from the rule for redistribution for parliamentary seats.
On reading the report one stumbles across the phrase "expressed without reasons". I am not sure of the significance that we should attach to those three words. Is it something that he mentioned in passing or does it have a significance? I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the case that the more grounds pleaded in the petition the greater the weight which will be attached to the preference. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to answer that question this evening, but I am sure that his answer would be of interest to other petitioners in the future.
I have no other question and no comment to make on the proposals in the draft order. However, I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the Boundary Commission's policy of producing its reports in bilingual form. There is a strong demand in Wales that the Welsh language should be used far more extensively in public administration. It is to be hoped that other public authorities in Wales will follow the example set by the Commission and other authorities, and henceforth publish their annual reports and all public documents bilingually. The Welsh language version reads very well and I should like to pay tribute to the growing skills of the Welsh translators of legal and public documents.
With those few comments and that single question, we on this side of the House support the draft Order in Council.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I agree that it is extremely useful and important that reports are published in both English and Welsh. That must be to the pleasure and use of both countries.
The noble Lord was both courteous and thoughtful enough to advise me earlier in the day of his question concerning the transfer of the Trebanos ward. I am able to say that in making recommendations the boundary commissions are bound by the rules for the redistribution of seats which are set out in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. As the assistant commissioner made clear in his thorough report of the local inquiry, there was a limit to the weight that he could properly attach to people's preferences as
152
distinct from the provisions laid down by Parliament. He concluded that Trebanos had stronger links with Pontadawe and that the whole of the community of Pontadawe should be included in one constituency, Neath. The transfer would also bring the electorates of Gower and Neath closer to the electoral quota for Wales and reduce the disparity between the two electorates.
The matter has received the full and careful consideration of the Boundary Commission for Wales and of a local inquiry. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not received any representations about the recommendations in the report, which was laid before Parliament on 9th July this year.
In summary, the order represents part of the continuing process of ensuring that constituencies have boundaries that are clear and readily understood. With one exception, which was the subject of a public inquiry, these new boundaries are not innovative. They are all firmly based on existing local authority boundaries. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.50 to 8.25 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Video recorded interviews admissible as evidence.
.—(1) In any criminal proceedings a video recorded interview with a child under the age of 14 may with the leave of the judge be tendered in evidence and if so tendered shall be admissible as evidence of any relevant matter.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to issue from time to time codes of practice for the conduct and recording of video interviews with children in connection with this section.
(3) In deciding whether to grant leave for a video recorded interview to be tendered in accordance with this section the judge shall consider all the circumstances including in particular—

(a) the probative value of the video interview in the light of the manner in which questions have been put to the child and answers given by him; and

(b) the question-whether the probative value of the video record may be outweighed by any prejudice arising there from:

Provided that leave shall not be granted unless the judge is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will at the trial have a fair opportunity to put them.
(4) The fact that a video recorded interview has been tendered in evidence shall not prevent the child who has been interviewed from giving evidence in person at the trial and shall not affect the right of any party to cross-examine him if he gives evidence in person.
(5) Crown Court Rules and rules made in accordance with provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 may be made for the purposes of this section.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that we had a substantial and valuable debate in Committee on the question of the provision of evidence by a child of tender years by means of video. I should like briefly to summarise the arguments.
I think it is common ground, and certainly it is the view of the Home Secretary, that so far as possible one should avoid the situation in which a young child is compelled to give evidence in court, especially so in cases in which the substance of the matters under consideration concerns what happened to the child himself or herself. In order to assist toward that common end, the Government have proposed in Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill that a system should be adopted under which a young child can give evidence, presumably somewhere in the court building, by the method of using closed-circuit television which will prevent the child from seeing or being seen directly by anyone in the dock or persons who otherwise may be involved in the case.
That is a valuable provision but many noble Lords considered it insufficient and felt that there should be a provision in the Bill which would enable a prerecorded interview with the child, whether conducted by the police when the complaint was made originally or carried out in some other way, to be made available as evidence in the court. That would be supplementary in a way—but in a very special way—to the provisions already contained in the Bill in relation to the giving of evidence by that method.
I think it is fair to say that in Committee there was a very considerable amount of support for that proposal. It was felt, as indeed we feel, that any way which can, even to a small extent, avoid the necessity of the child actually appearing in the court building to give evidence should be taken. We take the view that the taking of a video record in these circumstances, probably fairly soon after the complaint—if there is a complaint—is very likely to be a very much better record of what accurately is reported, or actually happened, than something which perhaps the child has to remember months later.
We also took the view, and take the view, that there may well be many cases where, when the defendant has had the opportunity of seeing the video record and hearing what the child says, he may be inclined, for one reason or another, to decide that the sensible course—where, of course, what the child says is true—is not to force the child to give evidence and therefore force a continuation of proceedings which would, undoubtedly, do harm to the child but where justified, to plead guilty to the offence. Experience in the United States, where this system has been adopted, suggests that this will often happen. One senses, particularly where we are dealing with parents or relatives of a child—whatever may have happened in the past—that the feeling of compassion towards the child which is likely to exist may well persuade the parent or relative to take the course I have just suggested. Therefore, for all of those reasons, the use of the video can be an extremely valuable additional method of avoiding the necessity for a young child to give evidence.
At the Committee stage, I think it is fair to say that the major objection to the amendment then moved, expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, but also by others, was that we had not made provision—deliberately had not, at that stage, made provision—to compel the child to give evidence if that should be required. It seemed very clear that
154
the feeling of the Committee was that that provision should be made but that there would be very real difficulties in passing an amendment of this kind, however valuable, through the House unless it were guaranteed that the ordinary right to ask questions, and cross-examine, should be available if a party to the proceedings, one of the defendants, wished to do so. So we have made that change in the amendment. It is to be seen as a proviso to subsection (3), which provides that leave shall not be granted by the judge unless he is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will, at the trial, have a fair opportunity to put them.
The amendment that we now propose, if I may summarise, is firstly that the video recorded interview with the child under the age of 14 may be tendered in evidence if the judge grants leave. If tendered, it will then he available as evidence in the ordinary way provided that the judge, before he decides to grant leave, has regard to all the circumstances. In particular, he is to have regard to the probative value of the video interview in the light of the manner in which the questions have been put to the child and, of course, the answers given by the child. That would be apparent to the judge on seeing the video record himself. He must also consider, generally, the question of whether the probative value of the record may be outweighed by any prejudice which arises from it. We come then to the vital proviso that leave should not be granted unless the judge is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will have a fair opportunity to do so at the trial.
We make provision in subsection (2) for the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice for the conduct and recording of video interviews, bearing in mind that this is an area that is constantly developing in other countries and, when law, will certainly develop here. We shall learn a great deal about the best way in which this system can be put into action. We provide in subsection (4) that a video interview having been tendered in evidence should not prevent the child who is being interviewed from giving evidence in person at the trial and should not, if he does so, affect the right of cross-examination. That may be thought to speak for itself; but it is probably as well to make quite clear that this is intended to be the situation.
Finally, we provide that as regards the actual technicalities of court procedure, the Crown Court rules, and the rules under the Magistrates' Court Act, should deal with those matters.
I hope I have dealt with this matter reasonably slowly having regard to the fact that this is the second round and my noble colleagues—if I can so describe them—have also put their names down and will, no doubt, be adding particular points.
May I say just one word in regard to the amendments which will, no doubt, be moved by my noble friend Lord Paget. They seem a praiseworthy attempt to improve on my drafting, for the most part, and I am always pleased when that is done for me. However, there is one amendment my noble friend will speak about particularly, and that is Amendment No. 28. He proposes that subsection (3) should be omitted from the amendment that I am moving. If that amendment is agreed to, and subsection (3) is

155
omitted, that would have the result that the proviso to subsection (3), which we have inserted at this stage to preserve the right of cross-examination, would go, and no cross-examination would be compellable. I rather wonder whether my noble friend intended to have that effect. In due course perhaps he will let us know. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, I call Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton.
Lord Paget of Northampton Lord Paget of Northampton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 26, Amendment No. 27:
In subsection (1), line 3, leave out from first ("evidence") to end of line 4 and insert ("and the judge shall not grant leave unless he is of the opinion that the video ought to be admitted in the interests of justice in the particular circumstances of the case. In the event of such leave being granted the accused may serve notice requiring the attendance of the child for cross-examination.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for the kind things that my noble and learned friend has said. I do not think there is any real difference in principle between the Government, my noble and learned friend and myself. We have a balance of two difficult things. On the one hand, all of us want to protect children. On the other hand, I think all of us are determined that even that objective shall not be put to the point of denying a man who faces this awful sort of accusation a fair trial. Those are the two essentials, and basically one has to give priority to the determination to provide a fair trial. When one is in a court that has to decide, the trial must be a fair one.
We must also bear in mind the tremendous tendency of children to romance. It is awfully silly to call children liars. The untruths that they are telling are often true to them. They are all mixed up. The difference between falsehood and truth is part of human education. It comes with education and is not there naturally.
The new clause which has been moved by my noble and learned friend provides that:
"In any criminal proceedings a video recorded interview with a child under the age of 14 may with the leave of the judge be tendered in evidence and if so tendered shall be admissible as evidence of any relevant matter".
With great respect, I do not see much point in those words. If it is ordered by a judge that a video shall be tendered in evidence, then of course it is tendered for all purposes and I would omit those words.
Further, once one has determined to make this a matter of leave by the judge, one recognises two things: first, that this is an exceptional and not a routine procedure in which a judge has to consider whether, with all the objections involved, a video ought to be used in that case; and, secondly, that one is giving discretion to the judge. It seems to me that there is very little point in telling the judge afterwards how he should exercise his discretion. That is for him to decide. Those are really my objections to subsections (3) and (4).
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, for clarification may I ask the noble Lord whether he recognises the distinction between evidence which is
156
acceptable only as to the fact that a statement has been made and evidence which goes to the truth of the issues in dispute? If he accepts that distinction, can the noble Lord clarify his last few observations?
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am deeply sorry, but I am afraid that I heard very little of what the noble Lord said. I am rather deaf. I have a hearing aid but it is not working very well.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is not worth repetition; very little that I say is. It will be in Hansard.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, subsection (2) of Amendment No. 26 reads:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to issue from time to time codes of practice for the conduct and recording of video interviews with children in connection with this section".
That is probably necessary. On the other hand, it is equally important that we should realise—this is where the judge's discretion comes in—that he is given discretion and that the use of videos should be an exceptional procedure and not a matter of routine. I view with considerable alarm the prospect of the idea getting around that if you talk to a social worker she will help you make a video.
Oddly enough, making a video is a rather romantic thing to do, particularly for children, and it has to be handled carefully. We do not want children saying, "What fun, let us go and make a video". Children are like that and, whether or not one likes it, most of the children in an estate will have seen videos, some of them not very nice videos. The idea of involving them in videos is something that one has to do with care.
Subsection (3)(a) deals with what the judge has to consider, but it is impossible to imagine a judge not considering those things. Of course he will consider the probative value and the question of whether the video is needed for the trial. If you are giving him discretion, it seems a little otiose to tell him how to use it.
Subsection (3) ends with the words:
"Provided that leave shall not be granted unless the judge is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will at the trial have a fair opportunity to put them".
Why "all parties"? Why introduce this sort of general right? The only person who, in terms of justice and a fair trial, must have that right is the person who is accused. It should not be general.
What I have suggested in my amendment is that,
"the judge shall not grant leave unless he is of the opinion that the video ought to be admitted in the interests of justice in the particular circumstances of the case. In the event of such leave being granted the accused may serve notice requiring the attendance of the child for cross-examination".
I do not know whether I have the same intention, but I think that puts it with a little more precision. I suggest that there should be a clear indication that this is an exceptional procedure—not something which we are in the habit of doing—which can be very useful on occasion. I think that I cover the same points, but possibly with greater clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, throughout the passage of this Bill the Government have been

157
concerned with the forging of new remedies for old evils or have discovered fresh situations which menace the well-being of the community. In that context, they have dealt themselves, before any amendments came along, the special situation of children under 14 years of age who have been involved either as witnesses or as victims in dreadful offences. Clause 30 concerns the video link. Clause 31 contains another provision where children of tender years are involved.
Amendment No. 26, which has been tabled and dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, whose observations I respectfully desire to adopt as my own, deals with one of the situations which is either an old one which has manifested itself in a fresh and unpleasant manner or it has emerged only recently. So the amendment recognises the importance of an early interview. It provides for a video recorded interview and it provides that that may, with the leave of the judge, but not otherwise, be tendered and:
"be admissible as evidence of any relevant matter".
We must not burke it: it means evidence of the fact as well as that the account was made by the child.
Common sense indicates that the sooner an interview of that kind is conducted the better. The children's memories fade, perhaps rapidly in some cases. They dwell on the incidents which they allege they were subjected to and they become ill and confused. With time they end up in a pitiable state.
It is quite clearly desirable that if such an interview is to be conducted at all it should be done at the first possible moment. It does not brook of the presence of the person who is alleged to have been the perpetrator of the offences. It cannot be possible for a person to have had an opportunity at that time to question the child in person. What it can do is enable an inquiry or an interview to take place which is conducted by a reputable person. The suitability of those employed for that task will be strictly governed by the code of practice for the conduct and the recording of the interview. Then the video recording will be produced provided that the judge is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will have a fair opportunity to do that at the trial. This is only a slight extension of those remedies which the Government themselves recognised and adopted in the clauses in the Bill to which I have already made reference.
The new factor in this draft, as contrasted with the draft which was put forward in Committee, is the recognition of the defect in the old drafting which meant that no opportunity was necessarily afforded to the person who was accused. The amendment provides:
"that leave shall not be granted unless the judge is satisfied that all parties who may wish to put questions to the child will at the trial have a fair opportunity to put them."
The idea that there should be any questioning of the child until the trial is quite unthinkable. It would lead to the harrying of a child before the trial, which we want to avoid in the child's own interests and in the interests of truth. It would enforce upon the prosecution an obligation which, to my knowledge, is not created and imposed in any other procedure in the criminal law. That is quite unacceptable. The first
158
opportunity the accused person would have to question the child would be as in any ordinary crime—at the trial itself. To ask for more than that and to subject a child to a fresh terror would be quite unthinkable.
This is a moderate measure which seeks to recognise and give effect to the great sense of uneasiness which exists in the community at large when it hears again and again and more frequently than ever of the dreadful cases that are thrown up. I respectfully submit that in the circumstances of the new wording of the new clause the amendment merits acceptance by the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment but I do so with a certain hesitation because I accept everything that the noble and learned Lord has said about the necessity of the provision for an early interview. But the question is: is this proviso adequate? Does it provide an adequate safeguard?
I confess to your Lordships that as regards that matter I have changed my opinion since I last spoke in your Lordships' House in deference to those noble Lords who spoke in Committee on the Bill. I confess that I was wrong to have supported the amendment in its previous form because it did not afford adequate safeguards to the accused. I was much moved by what was said by my noble friend the Minister and by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. Now I am convinced not only of the value of the first interview but also of the necessity to bring video recorded interviews forward in the law as admissible evidence. That is necessary to strengthen the safeguards for the accused. I have sought to do that in rather a DIY drafting for which I take total responsibility. I did that in Amendment No. 30, which I propose to move in due course.
It would be quite wrong, especially at this hour of the night, to weary your Lordships with the merits of that amendment but the safeguards are safeguards which are not envisaged elsewhere in the Bill. They are not envisaged in the amendment which I opposed for the reasons that I have given. In due course I propose to move Amendment No. 30, which provides in my respectful view adequate safeguards for the accused. That must assuredly be, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, the primacy of our consideration.
9 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. Let me say that in all criminal cases and in other cases the search is for truth and justice. We have, in justice to the children, brought into the Bill the video link. In the next door room at the trial there will be the child, the judge, the counsel and probably the solicitors questioning the child. Through the video, the jury in the trial room will see what is happening. That will probably take place six or 12 months after the incident complained of. The child will probably have either forgotten the incident or will have been told by those about her what she is to say in order to prepare her.
If we are to obtain truth and justice, the sooner the child's statement is taken the better. I have tried many cases and I have always found that a statement

159
made to the police immediately after an incident is more likely to be true than a statement made weeks or months later. I suggest that a statement made on the new video cassette machines in easy and comfortable surroundings which do not create apprehension and nervousness and as soon as possible after the event should be admissible in evidence.
It is said that there must be protection for the accused by way of cross-examination. We place great store on cross-examination in our system. That is not the case in other jurisdictions, such as those on the Continent, and perhaps we place too much emphasis on it. It does not always bring out the truth. However, it is a valuable right which we wish to preserve and the amendment is designed to ensure that right. It will not be used at the time when the statement is made but later. It will depend on the judge giving leave, which is the safeguard. If the evidence of the child on video is admissible, it can then be tested in the trial.
I prefer the proposals contained in Amendment No. 26. In all those amendments, we are doing our best to secure truth and justice by the taking of statements as soon as possible after the commission of the offence and by preserving the right of cross-examination. The amendments vary slightly, but I support Amendment No. 26.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is clear from the speeches made by the proponents of the amendment that they are concerned with sexual abuse and assaults on young children. However, the new clause goes far beyond that when it states that video interviews are admissible in all criminal proceedings.
We also heard at Committee stage that the initial interview with the child is quite rightly taken for other than forensic purposes. In those circumstances, the social worker would put leading questions because it would be her objective to draw the child's story out. That is quite contrary to our forensic system and it is extremely dangerous because the result is apt to be the evidence of the social worker rather than that of the child.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Hear, hear!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Even if that procedure was limited to cases of sexual abuse of young children, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, has rightly pointed out that perpetrators of abominable crimes are often exonerated or go free from prosecution. The alternative is to put the child through the trauma of giving evidence and recapitulating a terrible event in a way that is likely to be damaging and distressing. When I weigh those alternatives, I am convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that bringing in this innovation would be most unsafe.
The noble Lord attempted to dismiss as unimportant the words in subsection (1):
"evidence of any relevant matter".
Those words are crucial because they make clear that a statement out of court, probably made in answer to leading questions, shall be not merely evidence of consistency of conduct but also evidence of the guilt of the accused.
160
There is a further objection to the proviso in subsection (3). The noble Lord, Lord Paget, pointed out that the words "all parties" are not limited to the defendant. It is open to the prosecution to say: "I wish to put further questions". If a defendant asks for a child to be called to be cross-examined, he will immediately be subject to some prejudice against him by the jury. If he says that he wants the child called, the whole purpose of the clause is gone. The child will have to re-enact the terrible experience.
Therefore, we should do better to face the fact that some villians may get away with abominable crimes rather than risk prejudice against defendants as a result of early statements made on video or insisting on a child being called in circumstances where there will be prejudice against the man in the dock because of the nature of the crime. I beg your Lordships to remember the way it was put by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in Committee. He said that the worse the crime the more essential it is to maintain the safeguards for the fair trial of the accused.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and I am most grateful for the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
The amendment in another form was before your Lordships, as has been stated, on 22nd October. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham, who has been referred to, said:
"it is a fundamental principle of English law that a man shall not be convicted of an offence unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the jury by admissible evidence that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt".—[Official Report. 22/10/87: col. 279.]
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord.
Furthermore, I suggest that the children about whom we are talking would agree with him. No child's happiness is met, nor that of her family, if her father is unjustly convicted. I should say to the noble Lords, Lord Paget of Northampton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there is nothing in Amendment No. 26 to alter either the burden or the standard of proof in a criminal case.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, in our last debate said that while never losing sight of that fundamental principle of our law there is another matter to be borne in mind—that justice be done to the children. I suggest that there is another facet—that justice be seen and be understood to be done by the community in which the family lives. With much regret, I wish to say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He commented that it would be better for a man to be found not guilty or for the case to be discharged even if he had committed the offence.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, that is not quite what I said. I said that it is better that one or two villains should escape than that an innocent man should be convicted through prejudice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to ask whether she would agree that we are in no way concerned with the burden of proof or with the standard of proof; we are

161
concerned with admissibility of evidence. If she would address her mind to that issue, I should be obliged.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, to take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I apologise if I misinterpreted what he said. It is serious when a man who is alleged to have interfered with children is thought by the community to have been discharged and to have been found not guilty. I therefore suggest that a balance must be struck between the alleged offender, the child and the community.
My noble friend the Minister said on 22nd October that we need to consider the twin tests of benefit to the child and interests of justice. He said later that if tapes are admitted on a regular basis, a child may very well be faced with increased strain. It would lead to her being searchingly cross-examined on minor discrepancies between her video statement and her courtroom testimony, which would be worse than what happens now.
Amendment No. 26 would allow the prosecution to play a video tape of the child's original statement. There would be no need for a child to recount the incident before the video tape was shown. Therefore, there would be no discrepancy between the video tape and her courtroom testimony for the defence to exploit. Thus, what the Minister says the amendment will cause to happen will not happen. However, I suggest that what the Minister fears is exactly what will happen if this amendment is not passed. Without the amendment the prosecution will still have to make children tell the story to the court from memory many months after the events.
Where a video has been made the defence would be able to use it to cross-examine the child on minor discrepancies between the video statement and the story she told the court. That can be done under the existing rules of evidence. It is already happening. Unless this amendment is accepted, it will happen much more frequently as video tapes become more generally used.
This morning I received a letter from the NSPCC. I shall not read out the various points made except to say that the NSPCC is deeply disturbed in case this amendment is not accepted. I also add to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that the NSPCC says:
"Research suggests that children rarely lie about abuse. It is in everyone's interest that they should be interviewed as soon as possible after the alleged event while what happens is fresh in their minds".
I support this amendment.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not want to rehearse at great length the arguments which I placed before your Lordships when we debated this important matter at an earlier stage. We had a very full debate then, and it would serve little purpose for me to go over substantially the same ground twice. Indeed, it would be against the procedure of this House so to do.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, explained that this revised amendment sought to meet some of the concerns expressed by your Lordships during our earlier debates. The
162
amendments to his new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, appear to go even further in that direction. Indeed, Amendment No. 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, addresses the same issue in a slightly different way.
These concerns, which I fully share, were that in the interests of justice an opportunity should be available for the child to be cross-examined at the trial on her evidence. The noble and learned Lord's amendment meets this point in preventing the judge from admitting a video recording unless he is satisfied that there will be a fair opportunity at the trial for cross examination. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, similarly seek to enshrine the right of cross-examination in the clause, by the slightly different route of giving the accused an explicit right to insist on the child's attendance at the trial for that purpose.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is, with respect, a little less clear about whether such a right would exist but appears to envisage that there will be an opportunity for questioning at the time of the interview.
When we debated this matter in Committee, I offered the view that we should judge any proposed change to the law on two criteria: first, whether it would actually be in the best interests of the child; and, secondly, whether it was in the interests of justice. The amended version of the noble and learned Lord's new clause goes a long way to meet the concerns which were expressed on the second count. If the accused had a guarantee that if the recording were admitted and that the child would attend the trial and be available for cross-examination, no one could complain that the procedure was unjust. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking on hoard the importance of that point.
But what of the first count? That point was touched on by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Would a procedure which guaranteed the right to cross-examine actually make matters easier for the child? In some cases the knowledge that the video recording could be admitted as evidence might just tip the balance between a guilty and a not guilty plea. Unless that happened, though, it seems extremely unlikely that counsel for the defence would ever let the opportunity for cross-examination pass. He would not be doing his duty to his client if he did so.
That being so, it seems to me that it is a moot point which of the two experiences would be less distressing for the child: watching the tape and then facing hostile questions on it by defence counsel, or first being led through the evidence by counsel for the prosecution. There is also the point which I made in Committee which I do not think can be lightly disregarded. It is highly unlikely that the child would be able to tell a completely consistent story on the two different occasions, separated in time as inevitably they would be. It is understandable that discrepancies would emerge. Everyone's memory, adult or child, is slightly imperfect.
It is true, as one commentator has pointed out, that it is already possible for previous inconsistent statements to be referred to by the defence and be the subject of cross-examination. But it seems to me much more likely that this would happen if a

163
particular statement—the video recording—was the whole focus of the trial. The effect on the child of having counsel pick holes in an account which was already some way off in her recollection could, I suggest, be more distressing than first being taken through her best recollection of the events sympathetically by counsel for the prosecution, and then facing cross-examination. In the latter case, the child's first experience of the trial would be of questioning by someone who appeared to believe her story. With the recorded evidence, her only experience would be of the defence counsel's apparent disbelief.
It therefore seems to me, as I have said, to be a moot point whether the court appearance would be any less distressing for the child if the video recording were admitted than if it were not. For the reasons I have given, it seems quite possible that it would be more distressing. If that were my only doubt about the noble and learned Lord's proposal, I might be willing to accept it. But there is a more substantial worry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred in Committee, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred this evening; that is, there is a distinction between clinical and forensic diagnosis. I put the matter slightly differently. I agree with the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, the type of interview which will contribute to the requirements of investigation and the judgments of doctors, social workers and child psychiatrists, and, on the other, the type of interview which will be acceptable as evidence in court. The first is likely to involve different interviewing techniques, including leading questions and prompting, which would never be allowed in court. It may, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, conceivably replace the first statement made to the police, but it is subject to constraints different from those to which evidence for court purposes is subject.
The conclusion that I drew in our earlier debate (which has not been challenged today), is that the differences are so great that two interviews rather than one would be necessary—one to meet the purposes which experiments such as the one going on in Bexley serve; and the other against the possibility that criminal proceedings would result. I emphasise the word "possibility", because in many cases the matter never comes to court and is resolved in other ways. But if the scheme which the movers of these amendments favour were implemented, additional interviews, in a form suitable for use in court, would be conducted in cases where there was any prospect of a court appearance at the end of the line.
All of us who have taken part in this debate have had the best interests of the child victim uppermost in our minds. It is not a debate between those who would like to reduce the ordeal suffered by the child victim and those who would not. My fear is that we might, if we accepted these amendments, make matters worse, by creating a structure within which the child had to undergo two interviews shortly after the assault, and at the end of the day still had to come to court to be cross-examined.
164
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, referred to the experience in America. Under today's systems, it is possible for a video recording to be made and shown to the accused. That video recording cannot be shown in court under present circumstances because it would not abide by the rules of the court, and, therefore, a second interview would be necessary, which could lead to a more distressing situation for the child.
I hope that your Lordships will shortly accept amendments to remove the strict requirement that the unsworn testimony of a young child must be corroborated. The Bill already contains provisions for children's evidence to be given by closed-circuit television. These are two important changes and demonstrate our willingness to contemplate and promote reform in this difficult area. We can make them with confidence. We can also applaud, and watch with interest, the developments which have been taking place in the video recording of interviews with child victims for the range of purposes I have described. The discussion begun in our debates on this Bill should no doubt continue. But even after today's debate, I do not believe that we could be sufficiently confident about the outcome to move towards the use of video recordings as the primary evidence in trials of these distressing cases.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I at least detect that the noble Earl and those of us who have put these amendments forward are moving sensibly towards one another. I am grateful for the view expressed by the Minister that the proviso to subsection (3) meets one of the major points that he put forward on the last occasion. The second one is in his view fairly well balanced, to the extent that if he were concerned with those two alone he might be prepared to accept the amendment as it stands. I understood that to be what he was saying.
What seems to cause his final hesitation is what I consider to be seeking the ideal in a way which makes it the enemy of the valuable. Any system of this kind is bound to have its own built-in difficulties. Certainly there are difficulties in the system which we have already accepted in the clauses now in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to them on the last occasion and I need not repeat them.
I do not see that those difficulties are going to be so easily resolved that they solve the child problem. We should be looking constantly for improvement and I gathered from what the Minister said that we are in agreement with one another.
As regards the real problem—namely, the difference between the kind of video record which one would ideally want for the purposes of evidence and what might be the first statement or complaint made by the child—I am not sure that there is very much difference between that situation and the situation which one constantly has in relation to any criminal case. A complaint is made by somebody, whether a child or not, and, when sufficient material is available to the police, they take down the evidence in what one might call forensic form and the trial is likely to be based upon it. In practice that may well be the evidence which appears before the magistrates' court in due course.

165
I do not think it is necessarily the real objection that the child may be asked at that stage to repeat what he has already said. The suggestion is that the trauma of having to say it will be that much greater. It seems to me that that is very likely to happen whatever method is used for producing the evidence before the court. It is likely to happen in the case of the child who gives evidence in person or gives evidence in accordance with the procedures now in the Bill.
In the initial stages the child is likely to have to repeat what he is saying. He is likely to be asked questions. The important thing is that he should be asked questions by someone with experience of dealing with children, someone with the necessary sensitivity and someone who knows what will be required for the purposes of evidence. The importance of the code of practice which will develop will clearly be very great as this method becomes more acceptable in the future. It will dictate the way in which the child is treated.
It seems to me that at this hour of the night I should not really be testing the opinion of the House properly by seeking to obtain a vote. My feeling is that the debate has been a useful one as a prelude to what I am sure will be a succession of debates in another place. In the course of those debates I hope that agreement will be reached between those who want this procedure to be adopted and the Minister and the Home Office, who are clearly interested in obtaining the right result if the right result can be obtained.
It has seemed to me that those who took part in the debate this evening, almost without exception, were in agreement with the principle of what we are proposing. I suspect that there will be a very wide measure of support for the principle when the matter goes to another place, as I am sure it will. In those circumstances I hope that I am not, in saying this, disappointing those who have put their name to the amendment and who have worked very hard to get the best answer possible, I think it would be in the best interests of getting the right solution at the end of the day if I were to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Paget, desire to press his amendment?
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask similar leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved]:
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause?—
(".—(1) In any proceedings before a Magistrates' Court enquiring into an offence as examining justices to which section 31(2) applies, or in any other criminal proceedings, a video
166
recorded interview with a child under the age of 14 may, subject to grant of leave in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, be tendered in evidence and if so tendered shall be admissible as evidence on any relevant matters in issue in such proceedings.
(2) Leave under subsection (1) of this section shall not be granted.

(a) a tape of such evidence certified as accurate, complete and unaltered by the maker thereof shall have been lodged with the Court, and copies shall have been supplied to all parties;

(b) all persons who conducted or arranged for the conduct of the interview shall have provided signed statements to the Court and copies shall have been supplied to all parties as to the manner of conduct of the interview: and all such persons are available to give evidence and be questioned if so required by any of the parties;

(c) an opportunity shall have been afforded to the parties to question the child in person, and to the child to give evidence in person;

(d) in the opinion of the Court taking into account all the circumstances of the case any prejudicial affect of such evidence is outweighed by its probative value;

(e) in the opinion of the Court there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of such Code of Practice as shall have been issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of this section.

(3) The Secretary of State shall issue on the date upon which this Act takes effect, and thereafter may issue from time to time, Codes of Practice for the conduct and recording of video interviews with children in connection with this section.
(4) Crown Court Rules and rules made in accordance with provision of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 may be made for the purposes of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour I shall be brief. This is purely a probing amendment to seek to canvass some of the views of your Lordships. I shall make very few points on it. The first point is that we are concerned only with the admissibility of evidence—never to be confused with the burden of proof or the standard of proof for fear of ending up in total confusion. Secondly, the question is whether the proviso to Amendment No. 26 in subsection (3) affords a sufficient safeguard for the accused if we were to implement the broad principle which these amendments envisage.
Having listened to what was said by other noble Lords at Committee stage, I was satisfied—of course, it is entirely a matter for your Lordships—that the safeguards of this proviso were not adequate. In this area there are considerations which one simply has to accept as part of the facts of life. Children are open to suggestion. They wish to give pleasing answers. The toy ploy with the social workers or whoever it may be is open to serious reservations without the safeguard which I have sought to set out in the amendment. There is scope for the—albeit well-intentioned—error on the part of social workers, even child psychologists and psychiatrists. I do not want to make capital out of Cleveland, but there is a certain aura of disquiet about experts in this sphere. I think it is important that safeguards should be adequate and true safeguards for a fair trial for the accused.
Therefore I have tabled safeguards, first, to extend under subsection (1) the area of incidence to the examining justices; and, secondly, under subsection (2), to have the tape certified by the maker as accurate—a point that was taken up at Committee stage—with copies for the accused and all parties and to have statements from whoever arranged the conduct of the interview, or conducted it, available to the court and to the parties.
Then there is the question of the child having to give evidence, which is provided for in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 26. But there is absolutely no safeguard as to subsection (2)(a) or (b), which is a matter of crucial consequence. You simply must have the statements of the social workers who conduct the interview. You must have them there. You must be able to cross-examine them in depth if you are defending an accused. There is no other way, and it must be mandatory.
Furthermore it is no use just referring to a code of practice without designating. It is a legal incidence. It is a fact. You cannot just refer to a code of practice in the air. You must make up your mind what legal effect it must have. I propose that it should be mandatory upon the Secretary of State to publish this code of practice at the time the Act comes into effect; and that, if there has not been substantial compliance with it by the social workers, the police or whoever it is, evidence should not be admissible. I stress that we are concerned with the admissibility of evidence, not with the burden of proof and not with the standard of proof. We are primarily concerned with fair trial in this country.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do not think that those of us who support the use of the video thought of social workers as being the people to conduct the initial interview. Most of us imagined that the initial interview would be carried out probably by a policewoman or policeman who was well trained in this area and one other person acceptable to the court. We had not imagined that it would be a social worker involved in the case.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I want only to ask the noble Lord if he can tell us whether a word has been left out at the end of the first line of subsection (2). I believe that the word "unless" should be inserted there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, inevitably the word "unless" was lost in the printing. I gather that there was some complaint about this earlier today. I make no complaint. It is only a probing amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, on examining the drafting, paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to need the word "unless" but paragraphs (c) and (d) seem to need the word "if".
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend has explained with his usual clarity the purpose of Amendment No. 30. It differs in several respects from the amendments that we have just been discussing. There would, as I understand it, be more structured arrangements for the conduct of the interview and a formal opportunity for the parties to question the child, presumably at the time of the interview. What I find less clear—and this bears on the debate that we had on earlier amendments—is whether the
168
defendant would be able to insist that the child attend the trial for cross-examination.
I have two doubts about this. The first is that, if I am right in thinking that there would be no guarantee for the accused that the child would attend the trial, all the objections which were raised during our discussion of an earlier amendment in Committee would come into play. The second is that a more formal arrangement for the interview itself with, for example, those responsible for its conduct being themselves made available for questioning, would take us quite a long way from the immediacy and the informality that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull saw as one of the main attractions of their proposal.
If there were an opportunity for questioning on behalf of the accused at that stage, I am not by any means sure that there would be any reduction in the ordeal suffered by the child. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Faithfull picked up another point about social workers carrying out the interview to which my noble friend alluded.
I do not want to discourage my noble friend but I think that his amendment highlights the diversity of view that still exists on this subject, and, if anything, bears out my view that we should approach it with extreme caution. Having said that, I should like to read again all that has been said on this important matter tonight and to consult my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. We believe that it is part of an ongoing debate that is by no means finalised, because the more that we look into this matter the more problems we see, and perhaps the more we can overcome some of the problems. The matter is by no means finalised and we still have quite a lot of discussing to do, and I am grateful for your Lordships' contribution tonight.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept everything that my noble friend the Minister has said. I am grateful to him for his patience and for the patience of your Lordships at this hour of night in having deigned to consider this amendment. The position simply is that I feel in my bones we have to move ahead. We have to move some way somehow to redress the balance to protect the child against the molester.
Each time I seek to move, I seem, as do your Lordships, to find that we come up against the brick wall of the question: how can we have a fair trial? I shall never return to this subject. I feel defeated by it. I truly wished to contribute. Now, having listened to everthing that has been said, I feel I have no further contribution to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I hope that he will reconsider those remarks. He has an important contribution to make, as do all your Lordships, to this important debate now and in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause:
("Evidence of child of tender years.
.—(1) In section 38 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the words "and understands the duty of speaking the truth" shall cease to have effect and there shall be substituted the words "and appears to be capable of giving truthful evidence".
(2) In the said section 38, the proviso to subsection (1) thereof shall cease to have effect.
(3) In any criminal proceedings in which a child of tender years (whether sworn or unsworn) has given evidence or a video recorded interview has been tendered in accordance with section (Video recorded interviews admissible as evidence), the judge shall consider whether in the light of all the evidence (including evidence as to the age of the child and the nature and seriousness of the offence charged) he should—

(a) withdraw the case from the jury on the ground that a conviction would be unsafe or unsatisfactory; or

(b) warn the jury of the danger of convicting on such evidence if uncorroborated.

(4) The power of the judge to withdraw the case in accordance with this section shall not affect his right to hold that there is no case for the defendant to answer.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it is proposed to take Amendments Nos. 32, 134 and 140. Amendment No. 31, like the last one that I moved, arises out of the discussions in Committee when I moved an amendment in similar form to, though not identical with, this one. The noble Earl, though objecting to some parts of it, went so far as to say that in principle the Government viewed it favourably. That view has been shown by the fact that the noble Earl himself has put down the following amendment, Amendment No. 32, which goes at least part of the way towards meeting the points in Amendment No. 31.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the purpose of this amendment and the points of difference. The major purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to remove from the law two provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, now over 50 years old, which appear to be out of accord with modern ideas, particularly in the light of knowledge gained about children. The proviso to Section 38 of the Act is dealt with in subsection (2) of our new clause which states that the proviso ceases to have effect. The noble Earl's Amendment No. 32 sets that out at length and explains the provision more clearly and precisely. It deals with the provision for corroboration.
In subsection (1) of the Government's new clause and subsection (2) of our new clause we are at one except that we differ over the wording. I do not think that there is any difference in the substance. Subsection (2) of the Government's new clause, which also deals with corroboration, may go further than our proposal. The basis of our amendment is contained in subsection (3)(b) where we suggest that in certain circumstances the judge may think it necessary to warn the jury of the danger of convicting on the evidence of a young child if uncorroborated. The Government's proposal is that any requirement of corroboration should be removed altogether.
The substantial difference between us occurs in subsection (1) of our new clause where we wish to remove the provision of the 1933 Act concerning the necessity for a judge, before allowing a child to give unsworn evidence, to ensure that the child
170
understands the duty of speaking the truth. Our view is that that is unrealistic and that it is not an up-to-date approach to the difficulty in which one finds oneself. We wish to change that expression so that the duty of the judge is merely to be satisfied that the child is capable of giving truthful evidence. That seems to us to be more in accord with what is now understood about children. We hope that the Government will agree with our view that the concept of a child understanding the duty of speaking the truth, while it may apply perfectly well to an older child, becomes somewhat meaningless when one is dealing with a young child of three, four or live. The concept of appearing to be capable of giving truthful evidence is easier to satisfy and it does not require knowledge by the child of the kind of technicalities involved in the law as it stands.
I am not concerned with which of the two amendments should be accepted by the House, either the Government amendment or our own. However, I would be concerned if the effect of subsection (1) were not taken into account in one way or another. Therefore, I ask the Minister, when he comes to give the Government's view whether he is prepared to look at the effect of our subsection (1) and give an undertaking that something which covers the point will be put into the Government's amendment at a later stage if at all possible. If he is prepared to do that, I think there will be sufficient agreement between the two amendments for me not to pursue ours and to accept the Government's. In the meantime I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am anxious about both these amendments. I have tried many cases in which young children were concerned and my experience is similar to that of many judges over the centuries; namely, that a child's evidence is most unreliable unless it is corroborated or supported in some way. A child may imagine things and invent situations. Parents and other adults may make suggestions to the child and when it comes to the trial six or 12 months later the truth may sound very different.
I suggest that our forefathers were right. The judges and those who framed the law in 1933 were right. One should not rely on a child's unsworn evidence unless it is corroborated in some material particular. Furthermore, that evidence should not be relied upon unless in any event a warning is given to the jury to bear in mind that it comes from a young child and that they should not convict unless they are sure. The experience of judges down the centuries has surely proved right and has resulted in the existing law, which protects the accused from an unjust conviction.
When I supported the earlier amendment, I was under the impression that these safeguards for the accused would still remain. These amendments take away the safeguards of the accused against an unjust conviction. I am very nervous and anxious about these provisions being taken into the law and removing a safeguard which the law gives to an accused person.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, in view of the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 32, and considering the lateness of the hour, I gratefully accept the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, and do not desire to add any words of my own.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am unhappy about both these amendments. I ask the Government, as one always tends to do where children are concerned, to hold their hand before coming to any firm conclusion. I go along with the amendments in that I should have thought that we had reached a stage in relation to the evidence of children at which they should be allowed to give straight evidence—there should be no requirement for the complexities of corroboration at all.
To those who practise in the criminal courts, the complexities of corroboration have become quite idiotic; namely, whether one child can corroborate another child, whether a sworn child can corroborate an unsworn child, and so forth. I should have thought that we had now reached the stage where a child can give evidence.
If a child can give evidence, it seems to me of overwhelming importance that in every case a judge should warn the jury about the dangers of accepting that child's evidence without confirmation from any other source. As I said at Committee stage, it seems to me that a child's evidence is very similar to evidence of identification, and that unbeknown to most people identification evidence is bound to be very dangerous and suspect because of human error. Moreover, all the experience in the courts is that identification evidence requires some confirmation because human error is so enormous. Surely, the whole experience that all of us who deal with children have had is that the evidence of children is liable to be unreliable, It is important that any jury, testing the evidence of children, should be so warned.
It seems to me a great mistake, in Amendment No. 31, to put the onus on a judge to decide whether in case A he should warn the jury, or whether in case B he should not warn the jury. How on earth would any Court of Appeal be able to decide whether a judge ought to have warned the jury in case A or whether he ought to have done so in case B? Surely there must be a straightforward rule that, in all cases, a judge is under an obligation to warn the jury of the dangers of accepting the evidence of children; but the child should be entitled to give the evidence. I would have thought that this was a simple situation and one which, perhaps, could be adopted eventually.
Equally, in Amendment No. 32, I would be very much opposed to subsection (2) which abrogates the requirement for a warning when a child gives evidence: that I would be entirely against. I would have thought it would have been exactly the opposite: get rid of the corroboration but insist on some sort of warning by the judge.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is most disappointing to find the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, teaming up in opposition to me with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington—a formidable duo. I would have hoped that they would raise their concern when we discussed this precise point on 22nd October at Committee stage. Perhaps I can recap briefly on what I said then. I said that we had come to the conclusion that the little amount of comparative research that has taken place indicates that children are as good witnesses as adults. This is a result of the literature review of the scientific evidence for and against the present corroboration requirement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set in hand earlier this year. Therefore, this is a decision that has not been set in hand lightly or without due consideration. I hope that what I go on to say will go some way to alleviate the concern of both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
The new clause that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, proposes would repeal the existing requirement that the unsworn evidence of a child must be corroborated. In replying to him, I should like to speak also to the amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 32, 134 and 140, which we shall come to shortly. As I said in the earlier debates, I accept the principle that the unsworn evidence of a child should be received on the same basis as evidence from an adult. We reached this view, as just recounted, with the assistance of the literature review, commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, of the relevant research material. Thus, the new clause I have tabled removes this requirement of corroboration, as does the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord opposite. We are agreed on that principle.
There are, however, some differences between us that I would like to draw to your Lordships' attention. I shall also try to counter some of the arguments put so persuasively by the noble and learned Lord. Subsection (2) of my amendment would apply the existing strictures on the use of uncorroborated evidence from adults to uncorroborated evidence given by children. This is because I am not convinced that the case has been made out for changing the rule that in the case of a sexual offence the judge must warn the jury of the need for caution before convicting the defendant purely on the strength of uncorroborated evidence from the complainant. Under the existing law this applies where the complainant is an adult or a child.
The noble and learned Lord's new clause would make such a warning optional if the witness was a child and I do not believe that that would be right. I propose in my amendment that in a sex case the judge will warn the jury of the potential dangers involved in convicting a man, if the only evidence is from the alleged victim, on exactly the same basis as if the victim is an adult. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But if the jury believe that the child's story is correct, I see no reason why they should be forbidden to bring in a

173
guilty verdict. That is the first reason why I would ask your Lordships to support my amendment rather than the noble and learned Lord's.
The second reason centres on the amendment in the noble and learned Lord's clause to the existing requirement in Section 38 of the Children and Young persons Act 1933, that before a child's unsworn evidence could be received she must understand the duty of speaking the truth. The noble and learned Lord has taken the point from our earlier debates that there must be some requirement of this kind and his new clause replaces those words with:
"appears to be capable of giving truthful evidence".
The existing test has not proved unduly restrictive and I hesitate therefore to replace it with a new one, particularly one that looks on the face of it to be much harder to apply.
It is one thing for a judge to ask a child whether she understands the duty of being truthful and to come to a decision based on her answer. It is quite another thing to ask a judge to decide whether a child looks truthful or not, as this amendment appears to do. It is for those two reasons that I prefer the approach of the Government's amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my explanation and be willing to support my amendment rather than his when it comes to the point. The important thing, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree, is that the strict corroboration requirement should go and I am glad that we have been able to find common cause in that.
10 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, may I make one correction in what the Minister said? Subsection (1) of the amendment which I moved has nothing within it which requires a judge to make any decision as to whether the child is, in fact, truthful. The requirement is that the judge should be satisfied that it appears to him that the child is capable of giving truthful evidence, which is a very different thing.
I find it very difficult to see why it should be suggested that when the test is having regard to the child's age, and the other factors inherent so far as the child is concerned, that is a more stringent test than the existing test of understanding the duty of speaking the truth, which brings into the matter such concepts as that of duty itself which 1, and those who support this amendment, consider to be a very difficult one.
The Minister suggested that in practice it has not produced a great deal of difficulty. My understanding is that it has produced difficulty. At any rate, it seems to me that the alternative we suggest is a more realistic one and I find it difficult to see why that should prove more difficult to apply. I should have thought it would be easier to apply.
However, at this hour of the night I shall not argue at very great length over the amendment. I hope that the Minister will look at that point again. He has been very willing to examine the arguments that have been put forward as regards that point. There has been a difference of view on other points, including points which are common to the Minister and ourselves. But
174
so far as concerns this point, there does not seem to have been expressed any real difference other than that expressed by the Minister himself. Perhaps he might at least take the view that there is not strong opposition to it. I can see that at this hour of the night one would not expect a succession of speakers on the point. But there it is. If the Minister would look at that again I should be very grateful. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of requirement of corroboration for unsworn evidence of children.
.—(1) The proviso to subsection (1) of section 38 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (under which, where the unsworn evidence of a child of tender years admitted by virtue of that section is given on behalf of the prosecution, the accused is not liable to be convicted unless that evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence in support thereof implicating him) shall cease to have effect.
(2) Any requirement whereby at a trial on indictment it is obligatory for the court to give the jury a warning about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of a child is abrogated in relation to cases where such a warning is required by reason only that the evidence is the evidence of a child.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, as this amendment is being moved I wish to say a few brief words in support of what my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington said. It is simply this. I believe that any judge who has had any experience on the Bench, any experience at the Bar or any experience as a parent will inevitably and invariably want to warn the jury, in any case in which there is a child giving evidence, of the possible dangers involved. I feel that very strongly and I know that my noble friend does too. Clearly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, feels the same. In those circumstances, if the noble Earl feels that he must move the amendment at this stage we will really have no alternative but to divide the House against him.
In view of what has been said in your Lordships' House this evening I ask the Minister whether he will consider taking the matter back and reflecting upon it before the next stage.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it surprised me that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used the words he used. There was a very good opportunity in Committee on 22nd October when those exact points could have been raised. Of course I shall look at this matter again, but I do not think that at this stage, having made the commitment I made in Committee, it would be right for me to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the Minister said that there was ample opportunity to make these points. I know that I have always taken the view that when children are giving evidence a warning should be administered to the jury. I am perfectly sure, without going back to that occasion, that I took that view in Committee. The Minister really should not suggest that this is a completely new view which is being put forward by this side of the House.

175
It is a view which I have consistently held throughout the time I have had to deal with children giving evidence. It is perfectly clear to anyone with experience that a warning must be given about children's evidence. Children's evidence is bound to be unreliable. The possibility of its being unreliable must be placed before a jury. I must ask the Minister to think again about whether he wishes to press the amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, has been extremely co-operative and has withdrawn his amendment. Would it not be proper for the Government to withdraw their amendment too so that further thought may be given to this matter?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister referred to certain research evidence which he has received. I do not suppose that many of us in the House have received that evidence. It would be extremely useful and helpful if we knew more about that research evidence. As all of us who have worked in the research field know, there is research evidence and there is research evidence. Some of it is better evidence than other evidence.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that I have before me a copy of the Official Report of 22nd October. That shows that the only two people who took part in the debate were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, may be absolutely right. I have no reason to doubt that he felt strongly on this point. However, there was an opportunity in Committee to raise those points, but I regret that he did not take it.
As regards what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary instigated a literature review. That means that it was a review of all the evidence available before us. As the noble Baroness rightly said, there is evidence and evidence. Due weight was given to that fact. However, there are copies of the research evidence in the Library of the House; they have been there for some time. In all those circumstances it would be wrong for me to withdraw the amendment now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, withdrew his amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said. That is because we are on common ground and dealing with two fine points within that common ground.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I think the Minister is right in insisting on the amendment. All I want to add is that the argument between the Minister and those on the Alliance Benches may suggest to him that the somewhat softer wording of the amendment which I have withdrawn may be better than the absolute wording of his clause. However, that is something which he can consider in the future.
10.12 p.m
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 32 [Scope of Part IV]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 22, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert ("not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Meston. This is a comparatively short matter. It deals with the question of lenient sentences, on which noble Lords had an interesting debate in Committee. Your Lordships will remember that on that occasion it was proposed that the Attorney-General should make the applications to the Court of Appeal, that he would make only a limited number of applications in the course of a year and that the particular classes of case in which he would make such applications would be severely restricted.
The way in which the Government have sought to go about that is to say in Clause 32(3):
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall apply to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order".
The clause goes on to say that such an order should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The power is being given to the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to decide to what descriptions of cases the powers of appealing against sentence to the Court of Appeal should relate. That is an important power, which will much affect the operation of the section.
One can well understand the difficulty the Government face in trying to legislate now to prescribe exactly what kind of cases should be the subject of the procedure. The problem with such delegated legislation is always the same; namely, that the Secretary of State has to make an order and the two Houses of Parliament can either accept or reject it; they cannot modify or seek to vary it in any particular. That is exceptionally relevant in a case of this kind where the order will obviously contain what may be a long list of particular types of offence.
To get round the problem—one that arises not only in this Bill—the amendment proposes that first there shall be a draft of the order laid before Parliament to be approved by resolution of each House. In other words, following the procedure used on other occasions—for example, in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act—a draft order is laid, a debate takes place, the Minister listens to the debate and examines it afterwards and can vary the final order in

177
accordance with the views expressed in the House if he so wishes. One then avoids the House having to come to a decision in the first instance to take or leave the order en bloc. That appears to us on these Benches to be a sensible and helpful proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord. This matter relates to Clause 32, which was a highly contentious part of the Bill. Therefore, from this side of the House, one approaches it with some suspicion. However, we were defeated when the matter came to an issue. It is nevertheless important that action taken under Part IV should receive the maximum consideration possible by both Houses of Parliament.
"A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
The amendment proposes that a draft shall be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not here, because he made a very powerful speech recently on the tendency of this Government to legislate by statutory instrument, with the happy consequence, of course, of avoiding the risk of defeat, especially in your Lordships' House. Therefore, if we are going through a regime of important changes introduced in this way by statutory instrument, we should be very watchful indeed to see that, on a matter of any importance, each House, and not just another place, should deal with it. I venture to suggest that the other place will share my view, and it is for those cautionary reasons that I join in supporting the amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I too support this amendment. It is a great pity that this debate is taking place at this late hour, because it raises a very important matter of principle. It is a matter which has recently been highlighted in an article in The Times newspaper in which it was suggested that this Government, as a matter of policy, intend to legislate more and more by the use of secondary legislation, thus avoiding, as the noble and learned Lord said, giving the Opposition the opportunity to amend or change in any way what is contained in that secondary legislation. It will be of great help to the House if the Minister is able to say that the suggestion made in that article in The Times is not correct, that there is no such policy decision and that in future there will be a draft laid before Parliament so that the matter can be debated and amendments put down to it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the extension of the procedure in Part IV of the Bill to offences other than purely indictable ones is not a step which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would take lightly. I have, I believe, made it clear in debates on these provisions in your Lordships' House that the new power will be used sparingly. It would be extended only if in the light of experience it proved necessary, desirable and practicable to do so.
178
The noble Lord argued that such an extension would nonetheless be a sufficiently serious matter to warrant the high degree of parliamentary scrutiny implied by the affirmative procedure. While I shall, of course, as always pay careful attention to the views of noble Lords, I should have thought that the negative procedure would be suitable in this case. An order made under this clause would not introduce substantial new matter; the principles and procedures to be enacted by Part IV of the Bill have been, and I am sure will continue to be, extensively debated during the Bill's parliamentary passage. An order would simply apply these to additional categories of offence and would in no way vary or derogate from them.
Your Lordships may find it helpful to consider a recent instance in the area of criminal justice where an important and far-reaching order-making power in an Act is subject to the negative procedure. This is the power in Section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to prescribe custody and overall time limits in criminal proceedings. In that case, as in this, the power itself was subjected to detailed scrutiny during the Bill's passage and, although the provisions themselves were left to be dealt with by subordinate legislation, it was not thought necessary to require an affirmative resolution.
Perhaps I may remind the House that an order which is subject to the negative procedure may be prayed against and may be the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House. I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that, as the clause indicates, the statutory instrument is annulled if either House so resolves. Therefore, it will come to your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, raised this as a matter of principle. I refer him to Erskine May, and in particular to the second report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation—that is, HL 204 (1972/73). This states that there is no consistent pattern or direct connection between the subject matter of any particular instrument and the procedure to which it may be subjected. Therefore, I believe this is for your Lordships' House to decide depending on the matter before it.
I have heard what has been said tonight. It is right that I should take this matter away for further consideration with my right honourable friend, because, as I have said, your Lordships' views are important to his thinking. With that assurance, but without commitment, as your Lordships will appreciate, the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, yes, of course I will. I am obliged to the noble Earl for what he said. I was concerned not so much with the merits of the affirmative procedure as against the negative procedure as with the possibilities of proceeding by way of draft which is amendable in practice, because the Minister was able to listen to the debate before he put the order into its final terms. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 22, line 21, at end insert—
("(6) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (7) to (9).
(7) In this section—
"offence triable only on indictment" means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;
"offence triable either way" means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction.
(8) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
"(4) An order under subsection (3) above shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such statutory rule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument, and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly."
(9) The reference in subsection (5) to Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be construed as a reference to Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 39, 135, 138, 139 and 149. These amendments provide for the technical adaptation of the provisions in Part IV of the Bill to enable their direct extension to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Questions as to sentencing]:
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 22, line 24, leave Out from ("lenient") to ("and") in line 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 36. These amendments relate to the wording of the substantive new Clause 33, which enables the Attorney-General to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed in the Crown Court which appears to him to be unduly lenient, provided that the Court of Appeal has granted leave.
This is not an attempt to reopen the principle of that controversial clause which was decided, after a Division, in Committee. I took part in that debate, as did others of your Lordships who are present this evening. I referred to the wording of sub-paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) and, in particular, to the ambiguous reference to the wrong use of sentencing discretion by the trial judge. If your Lordships look at the preliminary words of Clause 33, you will see that it states:
".—(1) If it appears to the Attorney General—
(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court has been unduly lenient because the judge—

(i) exercised a discretion as to sentence wrongly; or

(ii) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing".

Amendment No. 35 leaves out all words after "lenient" until the word "and" in line 26. I submit that the idea of a judge exercising his discretion wrongly must be open to doubt. Surely it is possible to envisage circumstances in which the judge, having heard all the evidence and having seen the defendant throughout the trial, may exercise his sentencing discretion properly although he arrives at a sentence which is out of line with prevailing levels. Importing moral concepts of right and wrong in this context seems misconceived and could be challenged in the courts. The draftsman may have had in mind, in choosing these words, what is just and what is unjust.
180
But the English language allows words different meanings. The words "right" and "wrong" may as easily be taken to mean what is correct or what is incorrect; what is proper and what is improper.
Turning to paragraph (a)(ii), I accept that Clause 33 should specify that if the judge has erred in law as to his powers of sentencing the Attorney-General should have grounds to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal. If the judge thinks mistakenly, for example, that the maximum sentence for an offence is two years when in fact it is five years, and he sentences a convicted offender to what he believes to be the maximum sentence because of the gravity of the crime, clearly there is a strong case for the Court of Appeal to put the error right.
That is the purpose of Amendment No. 36 because it retains the reference to errors of law, but it rearranges that reference. That provision appears later in the clause. As I explained at the outset in moving this amendment, the words after "lenient" down to "powers of sentencing" in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) disappear completely.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice made the case for the omission of these words in subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii) when he spoke at the Committee stage. He referred to the possibility of misconstruction.
When my noble friend the Minister of State replied to the debate he said that he was prepared without commitment to look again at the argument that had been put to him. I hope that in the intervening period he has had an opportunity to do so.
We should not forget, late as it is this evening, that this clause is an historic change in our criminal law and procedure. It is most important that we should get the wording right.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. If the words which are sought to be excised are left in, they provide a quite unnecessary hostage to the ingenuity of counsel which, although not unlimited, is still, I am happy to say, extensive. For that reason it would be very desirable to make the matter clear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, these amendments remove from Clause 33 words which troubled the Committee at an earlier stage. The causes for concern were most persuasively expressed by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. Indeed, my noble friend has been supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, this evening.
I am delighted that I have heard nothing against my noble friend's amendments. They therefore appear to meet with your Lordships' approval and I for one will gladly support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 22, line 35, at end insert—
("(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection

181
may be satisfied if it appears to the Attorney General that the judge erred in law as to his powers of sentencing.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
("(8) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—

(a) any reference to the Attorney General shall be construed as a reference to the Attorney General for Northern Ireland;

(b) the references to sections 10 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be construed as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Questions as to sentencing—supplementary]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 110, line 12, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment responds to points made during the Committee stage by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Harris of Greenwich. Both expressed doubts about whether it was right to give a single judge any role in the procedure in Clause 33 under which the Attorney-General will have the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.
As it stands the Bill allows the possibility that leave to bring such a reference might be granted by the single judge with the full court being involved only if the single judge was minded to refuse leave. Our purpose was to spare additional work for the full court which would obviously have to hear and determine the application itself at a later stage.
We have reflected on the matter in consultation with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. He shares the misgivings expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Harris of Greenwich. On reflection, we also agree, and the effect of the amendment is to remove the power of the single judge to grant leave. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 111, line 22, at end insert—
("14. In the application of this Schedule to Northern Ireland—

(a) paragraph 1 shall be omitted;

(b) any reference to the Attorney General shall be construed as a reference to the Attorney General for Northern Ireland;

(c) any reference (except in paragraph 13) to the registrar of criminal appeals shall be construed as a reference to the Master (Queen's Bench and Appeals);

(d) the reference in paragraph 13 to central funds shall be construed as a reference to money provided by Parliament;

(e) the reference in paragraph 13 to the registrar of criminal appeals shall be construed as a reference to the Master (Taxing Office).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Dyfed Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons earlier this day agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eleven o'clock.

  TAYLOR REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  TAYLOR REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION
  EUROPEAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL
  EUROPEAN CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL
  ASHDOWN FOREST: BOREHOLE PROPOSAL
  ASHDOWN FOREST: BOREHOLE PROPOSAL
  STREET ROBBERIES
  STREET ROBBERIES