Sitting of 26 October 1987

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

  SELECTION
  Ordered.
  That Mr. David Alton be discharged from the Committee of Selection, and Mr. James Wallace be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Surplus School Places
    Mr. Nicholas Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by Welsh local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in their schools.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The Department estimates that some 87,000 primary places and 32,000 secondary places remain surplus to requirements. I hope that authorities will come forward with proposals to the benefit of improved educational standards.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that it is vital, on both educational and financial grounds, to stop wasting money on empty desks and channel the money to more educationally valid
    2
    purposes? Does he agree that if education authorities do not reduce expenditure on empty desks they will lay themselves open to challenge by ratepayers, through the district auditor, for wasting public money?
    Mr. Roberts: On the last point, I certainly respect my hon. Friend's professional expertise in this business. The cost of the surpluses to which I have referred is about £17 million per annum in Wales. That money could, of course, be applied to better educational purposes.
    Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of Wales the population is so sparse that spare places have been inevitable for the past 50 years? Is he further aware that Powys has only one child per 45 acres compared with one per two and a half acres in non-urban England? Does he agree that in comparing statistics the Audit Commission must be extremely careful to take account of sparsity factors when dealing with the education system?
    Mr. Roberts: Of course I agree that sparsity of population must be taken into account, and I am sure that the Audit Commission does so.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that schools such as Lliswerry comprehensive in my constituency have to rely on school closures and so-called surplus places to obtain replacement desks and chairs because the existing ones are in such a shocking state? Does he agree that this is yet another example of a vital public service being starved of funds, to the long-term detriment of our children?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should know that spending on education this year is a record high of £980 per pupil. He should also realise that we have recognised that capital expenditure is often necessary to effect rationalisation of schools. That is why we have increased the capital allocation to local authorities by a massive 18 per cent. this year.

    North Wales Hospital
    Mr. Martyn Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to seek to replace the employment which will be lost in the Denbigh area following the closure of the North Wales hospital.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): If a substantial variation of service is proposed, Clwyd health authority will be required to consult local interests fully. In view of my possible future role, it would be improper for me to comment on the effects of the proposals at this time.
    Mr. Jones: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman consider development area status for the vale of Clwyd, bearing in mind that rural Clwyd is surrounded by areas receiving assistance, including the Welsh Development Agency in Powys and assisted area status for the urban areas to the west?
    Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and these matters are, of course, kept under review. There is, however, quite a lot going on in the area. For example, there are five WDA factories ready for occupation. Unemployment has fallen in the past 12 months, and I hope that it will continue to do so. I believe that the substantial improvements to the A55 will also be of considerable importance.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anger in North Wales at the panic hospital closures which are being further considered by Gwynedd health authority even this afternoon as we sit here, and that there will be a loss of some 150 jobs in the programme, many of them within the catchment area of the North Wales hospital? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no such closures take place without reference to a longterm coherent strategy? If the health authority asks for a meeting with him to discuss financial difficulties, will he agree to that?
    Mr. Walker: We are in constant touch with all health authorities and are always ready to have meetings with them on those subjects. We have had meetings with that health authority. I understand that it is meeting today to consider proposals drawn up by the general manager. I shall have to consider any proposals that are made subsequently. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in Caernarfon cottage hospital. I have been told today that the health authority is not now being advised to close it on a temporary basis. Instead, the future of the hospital is being considered in the longer term. If any proposal is made for the longer-term closure of such a hospital it has to go through the full route of inquiries and eventually is subject to my consideration.

    Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years at constant prices.
    Mr. Gwilym Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of grants paid to voluntary bodies in Wales in 1978–79 and in the latest available financial year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Welsh Office grants for voluntary bodies
    4
    including those made under the urban programme and joint finance arrangements, totalled some £8·44 million for the 1986–87 financial year. The comparable figures for 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1985–86 are about £3·46 million, some £6·43 million and some £6·93 million respectively at constant prices.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the increase in the real value of those grants. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a cost-effective form of expenditure and should be further increased?
    Mr. Grist: The expenditure certainly has been increased — it has increased by 143 per cent. since the Government came to power. It is certainly cost-effective. It answers the real human need of those who receive benefit from the voluntary organisations and those who contribute to their work and financing.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work done by voluntary organisations such as the Urban Ministry is invaluable, that such work cannot be matched by official bodies and that it should be encouraged further as part of the inner cities initiative? By how much has the urban programme increased in grants to voluntary organisations? Will my hon. Friend continue to look sympathetically at all applications for carrying on the work of the Urban Ministry?
    Mr. Grist: A large number of bids are in at the moment, which are being considered. All such bids are considered seriously. The urban programme support for the voluntary sector has increased from some £600,000 a year to £2·8 million a year since we came to office.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister says that there has been an increase of 150 per cent. in grants to voluntary bodies and charities. Is it not true that more people in Wales need help from voluntary bodies and charities because the Government are not doing their job?
    Mr. Grist: Not at all, because the Government's expenditure on social services, health, education and everything else has been rising faster than inflation and the growth of the economy.
    Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister look particularly at the applications from Welsh Women's Aid, in view of the essential service provided by that voluntary body in reducing the amount of violence against women and ensuring the welfare of children in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman mentions a movement that I personally have always supported, and indeed, so have the Government. Since 1979–80 we have provided substantial programme support for the operational costs of women's refuges in Wales. In 1987–88 alone we are providing over £150,000 in support for that purpose. The running costs of Welsh Women's Aid are currently grant-aided separately by the Welsh Office. That grant has risen from £8,000 in 1978–79 to £70,000 in 1987–88.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is not an additional factor the development of several new voluntary bodies of this character, which formerly were on a United Kingdom basis and now tend to be on a Welsh basis?
    Mr. Grist: Yes. That is occurring to some extent. Under certain programmes, such as the urban programme and some of our other funding, it is necessary for those bodies to have a Welsh basis in order to receive assistance through the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister consider the effect on the voluntary sector in Wales of forthcoming changes in the community programme regulations which may make it much more difficult for the voluntary sector to maintain the level of activitiy, even with increased levels of direct grant? The community pogramme changes now being proposed will impoverish the voluntary sector by far more than the Government's direct urban aid support has enriched it.
    Mr. Grist: I can best answer the hon. Gentleman by asking him to write and let me know precisely what he has in mind. I do not recognise any Government programmes that will damage the voluntary sector.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Win Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh water authority to comply in full with directive 76 160 EEC on the water quality standards of designated bathing waters.
    Mr. Grist: In 1986 the Welsh water authority embarked upon its 15 year programme of improvements and remedial works to enable listed bathing waters to meet the conditions specified in the EC directive. In 1986, 23 of the 47 listed bathing waters already met the required standard.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the European Commission is deeply dissatisfied with the British Government's failure to operate the directive since 1976? Is he further aware of any discussions that are taking place between the Commission and the Government that will demand that bathing waters in Wales and elsewhere be brought up to standard in less than 10 years? In the case of Wales, where it will cost about £200 million at current prices to bring the bathing waters up to standard, that will not be done over a 15-year period, but could be done in even less than five years if the Commission went to the European Court of Justice.
    Mr. Grist: It seems unlikely that we are in any difficulty with the European Commission on that programme.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government's proposals for the privatisation of water will in no way diminish the already far from adequate investment programme to clean up the beaches?
    Mr. Grist: They will certainly not have any such effect as my hon. Friend fears. It is proposed that the national rivers authority will be responsible for the quality of coastal waters and will, of course, take over the responsibilities of the Welsh Water Authority in that respect.

    Opencast Mining
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he adopts when dealing with applications for opencast mining in Wales by both the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Grist: Applications for planning permission which come before my right hon. Friend are considered on their merits having regard to the provisions of the relevant development plans and all other material considerations, including Government policy as published in circulars or elsewhere.
    The current guidelines are in Welsh Office circular 13/84. They are under review.
    Mr. Coleman: No doubt the Secretary of State used those criteria in recent announcements about opencast mining. He now has in his possession a report from his inspector concerning Ynys Ffarch Fawr farm. in the Dulais valley. May we expect that the same criteria will be applied to that, particularly as the amount of coal that is to be extracted is insignificant—20,000 tonnes—and the amount of employment is almost non-existent — six people? Will the Minister give an assurance that the same kind of consideration will be given to this application as to those announced this week?
    Mr. Grist: Certainly. The application of the criteria will be the same in every case.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I thank the Minister for his decision about the Llanilid West site in Pencoed. This area has been devastated by opencast mining for some years. I am glad to put on record my thanks for the decision not to proceed with further development in the opencast mining area of Brynna, Llanharan and Llanilid in Pencoed.
    Mr. Grist: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an area that I know well, having lived close to it in years past.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister accept my thanks, too, for the decision announced on Friday on the Brynhenllys site on the upper Swansea valley, where development would have been intolerable because it went into the Brecon Beacons and was also alongside a close-knit community? Will he also condemn wild statements that were made on Friday by the management of the opencast executive, which stated that the decision would have a devastating effect on deep mining, when it is well known that the criteria for deep mining are applied on a pit-by-pit basis?
    Mr. Grist: The spokesman's response was possibly one of grave disappointment, of the same intensity as the hon. Gentleman's thanks, which are well received on the Government side.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, outside times of emergency, opencast coal mining should be restricted as far as possible to areas of dereliction and should not be allowed where it would destroy grade 1, 2 or 3A agricultural land or distinctive historic landscapes that can never be restored, only rehabilitated?
    Mr. Grist: Those considerations are certainly taken into account now and will be in the future.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that he is still failing to inform the House about what he is doing to maintain the high standards of health, safety and environmental protection in the working of small sites? What is being done about the long-standing grievance of opencast workers that their terms of employment should compare with the terms of people employed in deep mining?
    Mr. Grist: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point that there is employment in opencast mining and that many hundreds, indeed, thousands of jobs depend on it. That is one of the other aspects that must be taken into consideration when these matters are brought forward.

    Gwynedd (Unemployment)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in reducing unemploymentt in Gwynedd.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Since January 1986 the unemployment rate in Gwynedd has fallen by 4·4 percentage points, the largest such fall for any county in Wales. While the present rate remains too high, this fall confirms that the Government's policies are contributing to a real and worthwhile improvement in the economy of the area.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment levels over large parts of Gwynedd, which generally do not have development area status, are higher than in areas such as Clwyd, which have it? Does he also accept that areas such as Arfon, in the Audit Commission's Shaw classification of social deprivation, categorise themselves with areas such as Merthyr Tydfil? Should there not be a review of regional policy within Wales to ensure that more finance is injected to overcome the unemployment problems in Gwynedd?
    Mr. Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint, hut, as I am sure he knows, while one must obviously constantly review these matters, if one is changing the map at frequent intervals it makes for an impossible regional policy. There are other ways and methods by which we can give help to an area. Help can be given by, for example, the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I am glad to say that at the moment there are six WDA units available for letting and that 32 further units are under construction or planned.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to attract employment to Gwynedd and, indeed, to other parts of Wales is by inward investment and that on the face of it it is better to have inward investment from EC countries, where we are likely to get a share of the research and development and do not run the risk of subsidiaries being shut down when there is a recession, than from Japan or the United States.
    Mr. Walker: I have no desire to distinguish between one form of inward investment and another. I am in favour of them all on the maximum that they can be encouraged. My hon. Friend mentioned Japan. It is operating a considerable investment programme into Europe and I am anxious to see that the Principality gets more than its share of that inward investment programme. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is now a great deal of European interest in United Kingdom markets, and I am anxious to see European companies attracted to Wales.
    Mr. Foot: In the case of Gwynedd and other hard hit areas in Wales, is it right that the Government are now undertaking a fresh review of regional policy? Will the Minister give an undertaking to consult Welsh hon. Members before he introduces such a review, because every previous change in regional policy introduced by this Government has hit the parts of Wales that were already hardest hit? Will he consider in any such review the reintroduction of the special development area status which some of the hardest hit areas had and which was taken away by his predecessor?
    Mr. Walker: In the past 16 months unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than in another part of the United Kingdom. I welcome that. I have considerable
    8
    flexibility in the regional programme. The Principality requires maximum flexibility, and any regional programme to which I agree will have flexibility and, I hope, an increasing volume of expenditure in the future.

    Public Fund Management
    Mrs. Clywdasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now respond to the Public Accounts Committee's recent report criticising the management of public funds in relation to several Welsh institutions.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The Government will respond to the Committee of Public Accounts' report in the usual way. A Treasury minute will be published on 28 October.
    Mrs. Clywd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the accounts of the National museum of Wales were not available for scrutiny by the Court of Governors on Thursday because they still have not been passed by the Welsh Office? Will he tell us when those accounts will be available? Does he agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the Welsh Office has been totally irresponsible and complacent in failing to oversee a considerable amount of public money, when the people of Wales are crying out for money to be spent on education, housing, health and employment?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her pre-briefing of her supplementary, which appeared in the Western Mail this morning. I am as anxious as she is to ensure the maximum efficiency in all public expenditure, be it the National museum of Wales, the health authorities or the local authorities. We decided that independent consultants should be appointed to carry out the financial management and policy review on the national museum. They were appointed in September, proceeded with all due speed, and are expected to report by the end of the year.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the National museum of Wales has put forward discussion proposals for streamlining its court and its council? Has he noticed that effectively the first part of its proposal would be to remove from its council the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)?
    Mr. Walker: I have not made any such observation.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister ensure that the consultants report not just on the conduct of the national museum authority but on the conduct of the Welsh Office? Does he recognise that salaries make up the major element of the costs of the museum, and is he aware that those Civil Service salaries are set not by the museum authority but by the Government? Will he bear in mind that virtually the whole of the shortfall that has been commented upon publicly has arisen from the failure of the Government and in particular his predecessor to make provision from public funds for the salary increases that the Government have awarded?
    Mr. Walker: I do not agree with that conclusion. I believe, as I think the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) believes, that there is scope for better general and financial management of the museum. The portion of blame with any Government Department as the monitoring Department is something of a delicate nature. If one interferes too much with the detail one is accused of running the national musuem, which the Welsh Office has no desire to do. On the other hand, if one accepts

    9
    statements as to predictions that then do not take place, one is blamed when they do not take place. It is quite a delicate relationship. All I can say is that in my meetings with the National museum there is a determination to implement the best and most successful financial and general managerial systems, and I hope that that will result.

    Student Grants
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the levels of grants to students in higher and further education.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: In the last 12 months my right hon. Friend has received 29 representations on matters relating to grants for students in higher and further education.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister of State not accept that now is the time for him, as the Minister responsible for most of further and higher education in Wales, to look at the whole pattern of student support and also at the funding of places? Is it not time that we were able to plan the whole of post-16 education in Wales as one unit?
    Mr. Roberts: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are carrying out a review of student grants and that there will be a Green Paper in due course. With regard to looking at the whole of the area, the Welsh advisory body is extremely helpful and is collaborating with the university sector.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people who go on to university derive enormous financial benefits as a result of their study, and that some system of grants and loans might be fairer to the rest of the community?
    Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it would be wise for me to anticipate the contents of the Green Paper.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister look carefully at the effect on county education budgets of the financial pressures from central Government in respect of discretionary postgraduate grants? In some cases, counties cannot give grants for postgraduate legal education, thus restricting access to the barrister profession to those whose parents have the necessary money.
    Mr. Roberts: I had not noticed a shortage of barristers. We have increased the rate support grant, from which such discretionary grants are made, by 15 per cent. per pupil up to last year.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that his first answer, in which he prevaricated on the issue of possible student loans, will cause great disquiet within education circles? Will he bear in mind that students have already had a 21 per cent. cut in their spending power under this Administration? The minimum grant has been abolished, the grant in respect of their costs of travelling to college has been eroded and there has been the presumption of the 207 per cent. increase in the utterly hypothetical parental contribution. Does the Minister realise that there will be grave concern, in the context of a review that is about to take place and in view of his words, because the Government are seen as being not only disinterested in student affairs but as being positively and actively vindictive in their opposition and antipathy towards students?
    Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, between 1985 and 1990, we plan to increase student numbers by 5 per cent. I do not understand how he can say what he did. I must point out to him that this year the student grant increased in line with inflation. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that our grants compare favourably with those available in most other countries. It is certainly not for me to anticipate the contents of the Green Paper.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Would it not be a good idea to make second postgraduate degrees, after a primary degree has been obtained, the subject of student loans? That was the recommendation some years ago from an education sub-committee of which I was a member. Will my hon. Friend consider it?
    Mr. Roberts: There is much to be said for student loans of some sort, and I am sure that the matter will be dealt with in the Green Paper.

    School Class Sizes
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to provide resources for local education authorities to limit class sizes to a maximum of 25.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: No, Sir. Class sizes are a matter for determination by local education authorities in response to local circumstances.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that such disingenuous answers fool no one, least of all the British public? Half the money provided by local education authorities comes from the Government and the other half is strictly controlled by the Government in the form of rate support grant. Instead of talking about surplus places, why does the Minister not take a leaf out of the book of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who has promised that by next April no one in need of an urgent operation will have to wait for more than a month, and no one in need of a non-urgent operation will have to wait for more than a year? Why can he not produce a simple, straightforward, easily understood criterion for the level and quality of class sizes in Wales? If 25 is too small, will he accept 30?
    Mr. Roberts: The reason why I will not be led along that path is that life is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. He is asking us to impose a policy on local education authorities — [Interruption.] I hear the cries of Opposition Members. They reinforce what I have said, that it is not for us to impose the sort of policy that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to impose on local authorities. There may be perfectly acceptable educational reasons for the wide variations in class sizes within a local education authority. The hon. Gentleman will find his question thoroughly discussed in the recent HMI report on the effects of local authority expenditure on education policy.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister extend his reluctance to place constraints and impose policies on local authorities with regard to class size to other aspects of education and non-educational activities such as housing? Is he aware that the answer that he gave earlier expressing a reluctance to impose policies will cause amazement among local authorities, which experience the imposition of policies every day of the week?
    Mr. Roberts: This question is about education. The fact is — and we should not forget this — that we have the best pupil-teacher ratio in Wales at the present time, at 17·5 pupils per teacher. We should be proud of that, and that should not be the cause of over-large classes.

    Mold Bypass
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position in regard to the proposed Mold bypass.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: The result of the traffic surveys undertaken earlier this year have been analysed and further investigations undertaken. These have revealed possible solutions to the traffic problems at Mold in addition to those considered at public consultation early this year. I propose to consult local interests about these alternatives before announcing a preferred route.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend, confirm that the Welsh Office will be responding to the following local needs: the need for a line of route acceptable to the residents of Mynydd Isa; the need for an effective solution where the bypass intersects with the A541 so that we do not have traffic congestion along the Chester road and up Wylfa hill; the need for a slip road from the bypass into the Mold business park and most important of all, the need for an early start on the construction of the bypass so that Mold is not disadvantaged in job creation terms in relation to Wrexham and Alyn and Deeside, where road improvements have been proceeding more speedily?
    Mr. Roberts: I am sure that all the points made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account before we arrive at a decision. Certainly the April survey proved that there was a need for a bypass and a roundabout at the junction with the A541. We intend, subject to satisfactory procedures and the availability of money, to make a start on the bypass within the time band — that is, before December 1990.

    Inward Investment
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the progress to date of inward investment in Wales; and what are the latest figures of inquiries by overseas companies.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Since WINvest was established in April 1983 to attract inward investment to Wales, a total of 207 projects have been secured from overseas involving over 24,000 jobs and over £760 million of capital investment. WlNvest is dealing with many inquiries at the present time.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that under successive Governments and particularly under Conservative Governments since 1979, this has been the greatest success story in the whole of the Welsh economy? Does my right hon. Friend expect that success to continue?
    Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that in recent months we have had visitors from overseas companies averaging three every four working days. My hon. Friend is probably aware that in a few weeks' time I will be going to Japan where I will meet representatives of many companies interested in investing in Wales.
    Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister said earlier with regard to inward investment that he had considerable
    12
    flexibility. Does not that claimed flexibility make the recent loss of 300 jobs in the Cotton Mill project look hamfisted, maladroit or positively incompetent on the Welsh Office's part? Will he bear in mind that from the outset the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office knew very well that that project was interested in a site either in Swansea or one in Dundee, but in no other site? The project lost the site to Scotland. Will he bear in mind that there is considerable bitterness in Swansea and Wales that those jobs were lost to Dundee in response to the very development area grants that the Government took from Swansea when they carried out the last review of regional policy?
    Mr. Walker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman spoke as he did. I agree that he spoke in the same tone as that of the leader of the Swansea council. This morning I met representatives of Tootal, who confirmed to me that they have made no decision whatsoever about the siting of the plant. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman check his facts for once. I hope that he will also carefully consider the fact that the so-called incompetent Welsh Office, to which he constantly refers, has made an offer in the Swansea area amounting to between £7·5 million and £9 million. The Chinese firm and its British partners are willing to put in only £4·6 million. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should more carefully consider how wise it is to spend Government money to the benefit of Swansea.

    Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin
    Mr. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Wales by what percentage his Department has increased its annual grant to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin since 1979.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Since 1979–80 support for Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin has increased by 304 per cent., an increase in real terms of 132 per cent.
    Mr. Butler: I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he join me in paying tribute to the excellence of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, which does wonderful work in promoting the cause of the Welsh language? Does it not underline the Government's commitment to the future of the Welsh language?
    Mr. Roberts: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. Since 1979, we have enabled it to increase its groups from 280 to 720. Its full-time staff numbers have increased from seven to 11. It is doing a first-class job. It is typical of many voluntary organisations which, with Government support, are working for the Welsh language.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Visits
    Mr. Favellasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his last official visit to the Duchy.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My last official Duchy duties outside London took place on 24 July, when I received her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on the Duchy estate at Crewe. Also, that evening, I hosted a reception given for 250 magistrates at the start of their summer conference at Lancaster university.
    Mr. Favell: My right hon. and learned Friend will always be welcome in the north-west. His honest and forthright manner is well appreciated. When he makes his next visit, will he please travel by air from London to Manchester? As he is ushered to his seat by a young stewardess in British Airways blue or British Caledonian tartan, will he contemplate what would be the effects on that excellent service if all competition were removed? When he gets to Manchester, now British Airways' second most important base, will he consider how bad the effects would be if Lord King, through British Caledonian, got his hands on Gatwick, unless all Manchester's licensing restraints were swept away and true competition were allowed to permit that excellent airport to develop its full potential?
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that I visit Manchester fairly regularly and try to keep in touch with, among other things, the working of the inner city task force in Moss-side. I usually go by train; I rarely fly — I apologise for that. The Government have given considerable support to Manchester airport in recent years and will continue to do so. However, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot possibly comment on the proposed merger between BA and BCal until we have the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in our hands.
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people are currently employed by the Duchy.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sixty one, Sir.
    Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. and learned Friend next visits the Duchy to see employment there, perhaps he will stop en route, whether he travels by rail or air, and see what is happening in Bolton. Will he see for himself the large investment schemes which are creating many thousands of jobs and which are justifying Bolton's claim to be the most enterprising town in Britain?
    Mr. Clarke: It must be over a year since my hon. Friend last persuaded me to visit Bolton to see one of the schemes which he was promoting and which was encouraging employment for long-term unemployed people in the town. I welcome the opportunity of going there again as soon as I can and seeing the continued work of Bolton Business Venture, the enterprise agency, and that of my hon. Friend. I am delighted that all the efforts are paying off. I am told that unemployment in the Bury and Bolton travel-to-work area is 2·4 per cent. down on the level 12 months ago, althought we all appreciate that it has to go much further.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Allenasked the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the commissioners have made in relation to the effects on the staff of the church for which they are responsible of the proposed poll tax.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have worked closely with the churches main committee, which has made representations to Her Majesty's Government on behalf of all the major
    14
    denominations. Those representations have emphasised the loss of charitable relief on domestic rates and the serious financial implications of the proposed community charge for the churches.
    Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners to congratulate the Government on doing what many thought was impossible — uniting Jew, Hindu, Muslim and Christian under one banner against the threat of this unjust poll tax on their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and all places of worship? Will he also make representations to ensure that the Bible, the Koran, and other religious works will not be hit by the VAT which the Government will allow to be imposed on all written documents?
    Mr. Alison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard my reply. If he had waited he would have learnt that the churches main committee is consulting the Government to see whether some relief can be made available to the churches. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary, which he composed in advance of my reply, is therefore redundant.
    Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the staff and others involved in the churches have a vote in local authority matters and enjoy the services provided by local authorities in a measure equal to other citizens? Does he therefore agree that it is only equitable and just that all people in a local authority area should be able to vote and should pay their share?
    Mr. Alison: That is a very fair comment. Clergy do not pay domestic rates and they will not pay the community charge. The community charge will be paid on their behalf by the churches, and that is one of the reasons why we are consulting the Government.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office (Staff)
    Mr. Allenasked the right hon. Member for Ashton under Lyme, answering on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission, if he will give details of the occasions since 1984 when the Public Accounts Commission has modified, under section 4(2) of the National Audit Act 1983, the estimate prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General so as to provide for an increase in the number of staff employed in the National Audit Office.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon(on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): I have been asked to reply on this occasion.
    The Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General have consistently agreed on the desirability of planned expansion of staff numbers in the NAO. In consequence, there was no need for the commission to modify any of the estimates laid before it under the National Audit Act by the C and AG.
    Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend list those PAC reports for which the Government still have not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refer briefly to his notes rather than reading from them?
    Mr. Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to put the reports before the House is a denial of parliamentary scrutiny? Does my right hon Friend

    15
    concede that if additional staff were available for the National Audit Office the House could scrutinise the expenditure of the nationalised industries, M 15 and M16, as well as the special employment schemes, which do not currently come within the PAC remit?
    Mr. Sheldon: It is, of course, a fact that the National Audit Office has difficulty in recruiting and keeping its staff, mainly because of the salary levels offered in the City, among other places. We have the further problem that nationalised industries lie outside our remit, as defined by the National Audit Act. What we can do is to ask the sponsoring Departments to come before us so that we can question them. However, we do not have direct entry into the nationalised industries? Some people think that that is a pity, but legislation is required to enable the PAC and the National Audit Office to have that entry.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Sir Gordon Downey on his retirement? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling abroad that Sir Gordon's successor should come from outside the Civil Service and from the private sector? If the problem of attracting anyone from the private sector is pay, will my right hon. Friend put it to the Prime Minister that the salary scale for the Comptroller and Auditor General should be substantially increased so that we can attract people of the calibre necessary to ensure that the Department is run effectively?
    Mr. Sheldon: I am happy to pay tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, who has been outstanding and a most effective Officer of the House of Commons. He set up the National Audit Office in a way which has commended itself to the whole of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission. In relation to his replacement, there are problems about salary levels which are different in the public service from those which apply outside. That has caused some problems of which my hon. Friend will be aware. These are matters for further negotiation.
    Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend seemed to suggest that there would be no independent audit for important nationalised industries such as the British Steel Corporation. That being so, how can we have faith in the assessment of performance of plants within the corporation, such as Ravenscraig, other than by believing what we are told by Ministers or BSC management? As it is widely held in Scotland that both BSC management and Ministers are intent on the closure of Ravenscraig, how can we have faith in any assessment that Ravenscraig is losing money compared with any other BSC plant?
    Mr. Sheldon: Accountability lies with the Minister of the sponsoring Department coming to the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have direct rights to investigate the books and accounts of those nationalised industries. It would require further legislation to do that. Of course, that could be done by a private Member's Bill, if one were considered, but how far it would proceed in the House would be something for the Leader of the House and others to take into account.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Cancer Screening
    Mr. Rookerasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will arrange to provide cancer screening facilities for all those who work in the Palace of Westminster.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I see no reason to go against the unanimous advice of the Services Committee in 1986, when it recommended that on-site cancer screening facilities should not for the time being be provided for women working at the Palace. Female staff are encouraged to undergo regular screening, using the facilities that exist in the community.
    Mr. Rooker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but I do not accept it. Following the report published in February last year, it was discovered that the local screening facilities would not accept block bookings, and given the unsocial hours involved, the three-month waiting list is not good enough, as women cannot then use the recess. Given that Reckitt and Coleman, ICI, Plessey, Rowntree, British Bakeries and Birds Eye all provide on-site cancer screening facilities, why cannot we, as collective employers of all the female staff who work in the Palace, seek to open up the issue once again? Frankly, having read the report, as did many of my hon. Friends, in my view the matter was not gone into in sufficient detail, given the inquiries that were made afterwards.
    Mr. Wakeham: It is always possible to look at these things again. As the hon. Gentleman may know, an on-site screening programme will be provided in mid-November for the female staff of another place. Those results will be studied with interest. We shall also await a full evaluation of an experimental screening programme for women civil servants in Cardiff funded by the Council of Civil Service Unions.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given that the facilities are not available in the community, although the Lord Privy Seal seems to think that they are, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should look at the latest statistics, which show that the Government's programme will not be on stream by March 1988. What are women supposed to do in the meantime—die?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am advised that all health authorities, including Riverside, which covers the Westminster area, are expected to have implemented computerised call and recall systems for cervical screening by next spring.

    Members (Accommodation)
    Mr. Wrayasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has recently visited the working accommodation of hon. Members in the Cloisters.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Wray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that working conditions in the House are deplorable? In our room in the Cloisters we must stand on top of the writing desk to open a window, we have 5½ sq yd of working floor space, and our research assistants and secretaries must run like greyhounds from St. Stephen's to carry papers to and fro. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the room of the former hon. Member for Billericay is still lying

    17
    empty, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is wandering about like Moses? Because of the build-up in frustration among hon. Members, we are thinking about taking over where Guy Fawkes left off.
    Mr. Wakeham: It is almost a prerequisite for holding my present job to have had a desk for a time in the Cloisters, as I did some years ago. I accept that accommodation is not fully adequate, but the provision of adequate accommodation for hon. Members and their secretaries is not a new problem. Many hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that the facilities have been greatly improved in the last 15 to 20 years. For instance, we now have 417 desks for secretaries, compared to 199 in 1971; we have 262 single rooms for Members, compared to 164 in 1971; and we have 705 Members' writing desks, compared to 525 in 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will know, work is in hand to improve the facilities further.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Echoing what has just been said, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that some of us are extremely pleased with the progress that has been made by him, and by his predecessors on both sides of the House who have been Leaders of the House, in providing accommodation, given the limitations of the building and its immediate area? Does he accept, however, that one difficulty ought to be attended to in due course; namely, that secretaries of Members in different parties share rooms? In the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House, should they not be segregated wherever possible?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's last point. I am grateful to him, as will be those members of the staff of the House who are working very hard to try to improve the position in what are, admittedly, difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Leader of the House not agree that, even if we accept that the new Secretary of State for Social Services needs a vast horde of civil servants to look after him in the Richmond terrace development, the space not taken up by the Department of Health and Social Security could provide single rooms for at least 36 Members of Parliament immediately, as well as space for their secretarial staff? Does he not agree that it would be better to use that surplus space for them than to use it for a few assorted staff from the Cabinet Office, the Welsh Office and the Inland Revenue, as is at present intended?
    Mr. Wakeham: It was never intended that Richmond terrace should be available for Members and staff. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a major scheme for lleW parliamentary accommodation is already in progress on the site adjoining the Palace.
    Mr. Harry Greenwayasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the office accommodation of hon. Members and of hon. Member's secretaries.
    Mr. Wakeham: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my predecessor gave him on 9 February 1987. The situation has not changed significantly since then, but I hope that it will be eased with the completion of Cannon row, which is expected in 1988.
    Mr. Harry GreenwayLike everyone else, I welcome improvements in conditions for hon. Member's secretaries. However, I would ask for much greater improvements. Secretaries often have to work with an
    18
    impossible shortage of space, and against cacophonic noise from the typewriters of other secretaries in the office. How can they answer telephones and hold proper conversations in such conditions? Could offices be soundproofed, and could county hall be brought into the operation?
    Mr. Wakeham: Responsibility for the disposal of county hall falls to the London residuary body, not to the Government. However, I am sure that the Services Committee will take into account all the available buildings in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminister when considering ways of improving accommodation facilities. I shall certainly discuss with the Services Committee the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

    Scottish Law Officers
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will review the arrangements for the accountability to the House of the Scottish Law Officers.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfries (Sir H. Monro) on 26 June 1987.
    Mr. Wallace: The Lord Privy Seal will be well aware of the admittedly not unprecedented, but nevertheless unsatisfactory, position in which neither of the Scottish Law Officers is personally accountable in the House. Does he not accept that it is most regrettable that that unsatisfactory position has been compounded by the fact that we no longer have a specified period, such as the last 10 minutes of Scottish Question Time, in which the Ministers designated to answer questions on behalf of the Law Officers can be called to account? At present, all questions to the Law Officers go into the ballot, and it may be months before there is an opportunity to air some very sensitive and important issues in the House.
    Mr. Wakeham: The same practice has been adopted as on previous occasions when there were no Scottish Law Officers in the House. Questions to the Lord Advocate have an equal chance, with others, of receiving an oral answer, and the time allocated to Scottish Questions is unchanged. I believe that to be generally acceptable to the House, although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that to be so.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    VAT
    Mr. Chapmanasked the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost to the Church Commissioners in respect of the value added tax charged on the repairs of their buildings in the last year; and what effect this has had on their programme for the repair of such buildings.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners paid over £½m VAT on building repairs in 1986. This adds to the overall cost of repairs and takes up funds which might otherwise be used for the support of the clergy.
    Mr. Chapman: Nearly three quarters of Church of England churches are listed. As it is generally accepted

    19
    that the most beneficial thing that could be done to promote the conservation of listed buildings would be to remove VAT on repairs and as Government Ministers are hiding behind the excuse that they cannot change this because they are tied to European Community regulations, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Church Commissioners ought to get their act together with their counterparts in EEC countries and impress upon the European Commission and the European Parliament the need for change? Is it not appropriate that that should be done in this European Architectural Heritage Year?
    Mr. Alison: I have a very great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's desire that the churches should have more funds with which to pay stipends and that they should have to contribute less to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am bound to tell him that as the approaches to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of obtaining a reduction have hitherto proved fruitless, the idea of leading a successful campaign to the European Community, involving all the churches and others, is an even more daunting and, I suspect. an even more profitless, prospect.

Mr. Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution)
3.31 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision to stop the prosecution proceedings against Frank Larsen and others."
The Attorney-General made a statement to the House on Friday. Although he answered a number of very serious questions that were asked, he left many unanswered. Indeed, he provoked many more — not least the involvement of our security services and the South African security services. One accepts that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not necessarily in a position to answer the questions that were put to him, but they must be answered to the satisfaction of the House, not least because this weekend the Sunday press carried quite clear and attributable statements about a major difference, if not a disagreement, between the anti-terrorist squad and MI5. For example, The Observer said:
"After MI5 was consulted on 12 October, officers of the Director of Public Prosecutions' special case work division met Superintendent Talbot. They told him to drop the case and release the men … The anti-terrorist squad clearly disagreed: as late as 15 October its officers were pressing on with inquiries in the hope of reversing the decision."
We have to place these events against the background of international attacks on the African National Congress in the last few years, the bombing of the ANC offices in London and the arson attacks upon the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London. Those last two incidents could have resulted in very serious injuries, if not in loss of life. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want British subjects who are working in the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which is a legitimate organisation, to suffer injury.
I highlight those two incidents because they could have resulted in loss of life, but there is a tremendous list of incidents against these two organisations and others. Very important, urgent and specific issues are involved in this case. Only a public and open debate can ensure that those outside this Chamber who are representatives of legitimate organisations are not lifted off the streets of London and possibly assassinated, or bombed out of their offices.
If our security forces were not involved and the head of the security services, the Prime Minister, is satisfied that that is the case, a full debate should be welcomed by all hon. Members. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision to drop the prosecution proceedings against Frank Larsen and others."
I listened with great care to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that the hon. Member will find other methods of bringing the matter before the House.

Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
3.35 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an important, urgent and specific matter, namely,
"the deep sense of outrage felt by people in the north over the below-the-belt tactics being deployed by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in its bid to take over Matthew Brown Brewery."
The matter is specific because if Scottish and Newcastle Breweries—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please keep his Standing Order No. 20 application in line with the application that he made to me?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall come directly to the point.
The matter is specific because if S and N were to succeed it is likely to close the profitable Matthew Brown brewery in Workington, in which £750,000 has just been invested. The people of Workington are deeply concerned that its closure would further boost the high levels of unemployment.
The matter is important because S and N is turning the stock market collapse to its commercial advantage by stampeding frightened investors into selling their shares in Matthew Brown for cash. The spectacle of S and N's squalid tactics on the stock market can only be likened to the activity of a wartime black marketeer, who profits out of misfortune, or to a looter, whose only opportunity to loot occurs when a natural disaster has struck. Where are the traditional British values of fair play? At a time when desperate attempts are under way to restore sanity to the money markets, surely the greedy and avaricious practices of the Casbah should be condemned.
The matter is urgent because this bid epitomises the contradiction that lies at the heart of merger policy. On the one hand agencies of the Government are promoting enterprise, but on the other we have a merger policy that allows a predator to pursue its quarry with the single objective of stripping out its assets. This hunt is taking place, not in the industrial heartland of the north, but in the City of London, as yuppies clamber over themselves in a desperate attempt to cut their losses.
The matter is also urgent because the affair, which is riddled with irregularities, awaits the findings of the stock exchange surveillance department investigation into insider dealing on the day prior to S and N's bid.
The House will want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that this bid will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Scottish and Newcastle Breweries must be stopped in its tracks. A debate will stop it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the bid for Matthew Brown by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries following upon the 3 o'clock deadline set by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries for the acceptance of cash in the purchase of shares."
I listened with care to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised

23
to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)
3.38 pm
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to note the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House about the unusual and perturbing situation that has arisen in the financial markets.
I rise on a point of order because not only is it inadequate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not come to the House to make a statement, but he has added insult to injury by proposing to speak to the stock exchange this evening. As a result, he will be reporting to the stock exchange on these events, instead of to this House, to which he is properly accountable. The Leader of the House is present, and I hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House before he addresses the stock exchange — he certainly has time to do so —so that at the earliest opportunity he can account to the House for his responsibilities in this matter.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today is an Opposition Supply day and that it was up to the Opposition parties to choose the subject for debate? Since events on the stock exchange have been unfolding for some days, we must assume that they did not take sufficient interest in what had been happening to select the matter for debate.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wholly unprecedented that an economic matter of such significance as the decline of the stock exchange and the importance attached to the economic consequences of the collapse in share values should not lead to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appear before the House? Many hon. Members see the Chancellor of the Exchequer night after night on the television screen, yet have not had an opportunity to question him in the House. Should that not be remedied without further delay?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rooker— [Interruption.] That was a slip of the tongue. Mr. Brian Sedgemore.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Speaking in my capacity as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I think that we need your help. The House is in danger of looking like a Ruritanian assembly, indulging itself at the periphery, but not dealing with the problems at the heart of the nation's affairs. As the financial crisis sends the economies of the Western world spinning perilously close to calamity—we hope that that will not happen—it seems extraordinary that although every commentator in every country is talking about the matter, there has been no discussion in Parliament. I understand that the Government have been asked to make a statement but have said that the matter has nothing to do with them. However, the Chancellor is talking to everybody else about it. I understand also that there have been requests for private notice questions. Some of us find it mind-boggling that such private notice questions should be disallowed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to any applications of that sort.
Mr. Sedgemore: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to help the House and either urge the Chancellor to make a statement or give an assurance that if one of us asks for a private notice question to be tabled tomorrow you will accept it so that the Chancellor will have an opportunity to explain what could be the most dangerous economic event of the 20th century.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an additional dimension, in that in a few days' time the Government will be hoping to flog off their holding in British Petroleum. That is obviously linked to what is taking place on the stock market now. I was confronted by somebody in my constituency today who asked whether to go for BP shares or get into gold futures. I could not answer that question. Therefore, I desperately need the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise us whether it is good for the dignity of the House, as we face the most severe recession since the war, and the fact that before the end of this year we will see mortgage foreclosures and a further rise in unemployment, to hear Conservative Members crying like public schoolboys as we face the scale of that recession?
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think you will agree that we are at a crisis in which the casino-like society created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is collapsing. Surely he should be here to explain that, particularly before he goes to the stock exchange, if indeed there is a stock exchange left to go to.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday during business questions I asked the Leader of the House, who is present, to arrange for a statement to be made on this matter. It looks as if either he has no control over the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, or he has completely ignored the wishes of many of those who want a statement to be made. It is high time that the House understood that this is not just a matter for the casino economy. What is happening on the stock exchange and on the stock exchanges internationally will affect the livelihood of all our constituents.
Labour Members are concerned about the unemployment that will follow and about further cuts that will be announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, when he eventually makes one, whereas Tory Members like unemployment and are not concerned, but that does not mean that there should not be a statement. It is a scandal that the Tory Government do not have the guts to present their case at the Dispatch Box. It is time that they did so.
Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to describe Conservative Members as being unconcerned about unemployment?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with me, but I will take two further points of order from hon. Members who have been rising in their places.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not the Chancellor's
26
attitude in failing to make a statement to the House about the stock exchange crisis be described as the Nero-Nero option?
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the Labour party is seeking to make a crisis out of a problem? Stock exchange prices are higher than they were at this time last year, but Labour Members were not calling for a debate then. It is clear that they wish to cause a crisis where none exists.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker.Order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I am on my feet. I have listened to the points of order because I recognise the concern of the House. I was not previously aware that the Chancellor was to make any statement outside the House. That is why I have allowed these exchanges today. As the whole House recognises, however, this is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House is present. I am certain that he will have noted what has been said about this matter, and no doubt it is one which may properly be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise your dilemma in this matter, but you have a responsibility to try to sustain the reputation of the House. The decline on the stock exchange is being discussed in every pub and wine bar, and the Chancellor is going to the stock exchange to talk about it, but he has not come to the House. That is unreasonable. It is unfair to the House and to the country, and it will bring both you, Mr. Speaker, and the House into disrepute unless the Chancellor reports to this place and explains what he is up to.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can carry this any further. I must emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said. There could have been an opportunity to discuss this matter today. but there is nothing that I can do about it at this stage.
Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members have been referring to the subjects of today's debates. May I make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that if the Chancellor will come to the House at Seven o'clock to take part in a debate we shall propose that the subject of the debate be changed to cover this urgent topic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is too serious a matter for shouting across the Chamber.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that matter.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Dalyell: Yes. My point of order concerns precedent. The precedent is this. Will you reflect, Mr Speaker, whether there has been a change of policy in the

27
rulings of Mr. Speaker? I have checked this with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). In the economic crisis of July 1966, Mr. Speaker King took certain key decisions off his own bat about requiring the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, our former right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, to come to the Dispatch Box against his will. I understand that that was Mr. Speaker's decision at the time. Will you reflect, Mr. Speaker, and possibly rule tomorrow, on whether there has been a change of policy from the precedent set by Mr. Speaker King?
Mr. Speaker: I shall, of course, look up that precedent. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the making of statements. Let us move on to the statutory instruments—
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Opposition wish to change the business for this evening we need the agreement of the Government so to do?
Mr. Speaker: That is so, but I am sure that that matter could, and should, properly be discussed through the usual channels.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 10) Order 1987 1987, No. 1804) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Opposition Day
  [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Mr. Speaker: I regret that the order of the two motions on the Order Paper for today's Opposition business does not accord with what was announced by the Leader of the House last Thursday. It is proposed to revert to what was the original intention — that the firearms debate should come first and the education debate second.
  In addition, today's Order Paper is not in the normal full printed version. As hon. Members will have noted, this is not the first deficiency in the House's papers since we resumed last Wednesday. I am investigating the cause of the difficulties that have occurred. My preliminary inquiries show that the recent introduction of new printing methods is at the root of the problem. There have also been abnormal amounts of copy in some areas of work. I understand that the Stationery Office is seeking to ensure that delays and other difficulties are kept to a minimum.

  Firearms
  Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
  That this House supports the need for legislation which will provide additional and stringent controls over the possession and use of firearms: calls upon the Home Secretary to include within that legislation the requirement of a separate certificate for each individual firearm, a central register of all approved firearms, a prohibition of the private sale and use of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and a total ban on all mail-order sales of firearms: and further calls upon the Home Secretary immediately to introduce such a Bill in this House.
  I should like to express my surprise and regret that the Government propose to divide the House at 7 o'clock on what should and could be a subject of unanimous agreement. It was in the hope of such an agreement that we tabled a motion that is constructive rather than polemical. The motion proposes a strengthening of the gun laws, which is demanded by the general public, and happens to be a strengthening of the gun laws that is supported by the police forces of this country, yet the Home Secretary has tabled an amendment that amounts to no more than a string of platitudes. I presume that he is still not ready to stand up either to the shotgun lobby or to the mail order lobby, but whatever the motives of that vacuous amendment, the result is obvious and will be clear to the country. What Conservative Members will vote for this evening is a form of words that can be described only as wet. It is also risibly complacent, for it promises firearms legislation during this Session of Parliament.
  The Home Secretary will recall that when, two weeks ago, he was kind enough to consult me about legislation concerning the limitation on knives and related weapons I asked, in his presence, the officials who advise him what legislation on these matters in this Session of Parliament meant. They told me that there was no hope within the present scheme of things for any new laws to be on the statute book before the summer of 1988. Frankly, the Home Secretary makes himself ridiculous by first

  29
  identifying a problem that he describes as urgent and then announcing that he proposes to remedy it some time during the middle of next year.
  Throughout the country there is widespread agreement that we need more stringent, comprehensive and effective firearms regulations. I had hoped that that widespread agreement would be reflected in the House, despite the barrage of gun club propaganda to which we have been subjected in recent weeks. Some of that propaganda has been so irrational, blatant and obviously of a special pleading nature that it must have damaged its own cause, though clearly it has, in part, intimidated the Home Secretary. Public anxiety is inevitably high, and it has been heightened by the Hungerford tragedy and the other terrible shootings of the summer.
  It is important to make absolutely clear that those terrible events demonstrated, rather than created, the urgent need for gun control. Indeed, as long ago as last March London Labour Members of Parliament wrote to the Home Secretary setting out and warning of the dangers of guns in London, and asking for a revision of the laws governing the ownership and use of guns and knives. That was in March, and I think the Home Secretary will tell us today that if he is to respond to that letter at all it will not be until next March—several months after a year has passed since that plea from London was presented to him.
  I propose to spend little or no time this afternoon arguing the case for tighter gun control. That, I believe, is generally accepted, at least outside the House. However, I propose to concentrate on the way in which that tighter gun control should be achieved. I repeat that, in my view, it would be achieved most successfully if there were agreement in Parliament about how the desired objective could be achieved.
  Arms control depends on three factors: the content of the law; the enforcement of the law; and the acceptance by those who own guns of the need to co-operate fully in the law's application. Such co-operation would most likely come about if the House came to a unanimous conclusion about stronger regulation. Even though that is not possible this afternoon, I hope that, on reflection, and when he has had his necessary consultations with the sporting interests and others, the Home Secretary will come to accept the virtues of a common approach and realise that if he desires an agreement on both sides he may have to rally round a central position which, although not altogether attractive either to the gun clubs or the Country Landowners Association, is nevertheless demanded and wanted by the country. I hope he understands that if there is to be the co-operation over gun control that I suspect he still seeks, he has to move into that central position. We shall do our best to accommodate him if he is reasonable enough to try to accommodate us.
  In such a spirit, I want to make one thing plain. The Opposition accept that the possession and use of firearms is often legitimate and sometimes necessary. Farmers need guns. A man or woman has the right to spend leisure time shooting in competitions or in properly organised target practice. I admit that farmers, members of gun clubs and legitimate owners and users may be inconvenienced by what I propose this afternoon. However, I hope that most of them will regard that inconvenience as a small price to pay for a reduction in the number of guns that are illegally possessed, illegitimately used and irresponsibly carried from place to place. That inconvenience is also the price that they must pay for the necessary reduction in the
  30
  amount of ammunition that is insecurely kept and unnecessarily transported in areas where it may be stolen and may be misused.
  Before I describe the nature and extent of the controls that I propose for firearms, I should like to refer briefly to the parallel problem of knives and other edged weapons, not least because we can learn from the principles of the Home Secretary's proposals and from the way in which he went about proposing them and thus obtained a great deal of agreement throughout the House. The Home Secretary proposes to prohibit the manufacture, sale and possession of various martial arts weapons, despite the objection that he will get from the martial arts clubs. We shall support the Government in that.
  The Home Secretary proposes to define in law the circumstances in which it is legitimate and legal to carry a knife. Possessing a knife or a similar weapon in a public place, except for those defined purposes, is to become illegal. We shall support the Government's proposal about that. The inevitable consequence of those new regulations will be to place an added responsibility on those w ho sell knives, military memorabilia and what is euphemistically called survival equipment. When the shopkeepers and their associations complain, as complain they will, we shall support the Government. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see our high streets totally free from the so-called martial arts shops and so-called survival shops. The several that exist in my constituency make no contribution to the life and work of the area and represent a perpetual danger and temptation to young men. We shall support the Home Secretary when the complaints come in.
  Equally, we shall support the Home Secretary on the prohibition of the sale of knives and similar weapons by post, catalogue and mail order. Notwithstanding that, the Home Secretary's scheme about knives carries with it two great problems. The first is his intention to shift the onus of proof to the person found carrying a knife. To require a suspect to prove his innocence is, in general, wholly unacceptable in a free society. However, in the case of the possession of knives it is possible to construct powers that preserve essential liberties and enable the police effectively to act against those who unlawfully carry knives and similar weapons. I hope that the Home Secretary will enter into early discussions with us on that precise point in order to present a chance of obtaining agreement on knives and their prohibition in the way that I want to see agreement on the safer use of guns.
  The second problem about the proposal on knives is what the Home Secretary describes as an extension of the stop-and-search powers. I opposed the introduction of stop and search when five years ago it was first proposed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I still oppose that general power, because it is open to abuse and is certain to result in harassment. During the passage of that Bill I made it clear that in my judgment the right to stop on reasonable suspicion and the right to search with the safeguard of prior warning and subsequent report was necessary when a police officer suspected the possession of an offensive weapon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said much the same thing when the Bill was reintroduced after the 1983 general election.
  It is our intention to support the Home Secretary's proposals with as much enthusiasm as we can. That is because we believe that the principles on which they are based are right. The principles on which that legislation is

  31
  based ought to be applied equally to the regulations governing firearms. We ought to define far more precisely than is the present practice acceptable reasons for the ownership and use of firearms. Certificates and licences should be issued only to applicants who can demonstrate a specific, explicit and legitimate use. That rule ought to apply, and must apply, to all shotguns.
  The idea that a shotgun or any number of shotguns may be available to every applicant who passes a perfunctory test is clearly absurd. That is the clear view of the Police Federation, which presently carries out that perfunctory test. The check is clearly and unavoidably inadequate. All licences and certificates should be issued for, and thus should legalise the possession of, only one weapon. The dangers of allowing one certificate to legalise the possession of an unlimited number of shotguns are so great and so obvious that to me at least it is astonishing that the system has survived for so long.
  Sir John Farr: Flow can every shotgun be individually certificated when, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, many shotguns have no form of numbering on them?
  Mr. Hattersley: I hope that I am not stretching the hon. Gentleman's imagination too far when I say that the law must require shotguns to have numbers engraved upon them. That will be necessary if there is to be the sort of control that I, the public and the police want. Every gun must be individually accounted for, and the burden of requiring shotgun makers, some of whom I represent in my constituency, to number their guns is a small inconvenience if it results in fewer people getting their heads shot off. It is a balance of interests in which the numbering of guns pales into insignificance when compared to the advantages of control.
  I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical question. He knows well that the possession of a shotgun certificate allows him or any other person to possess any number of shotguns. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me and with the Police Federation that the test for such possession is perfunctory to the point of being meaningless. If a person is enabled, through the possession of a single certificate, to become a multiple shotgun owner, that person can respond to an advertisement in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine and buy himself a shot slugster, fast operating, pump action, detachable barrel, magnum chambered shotgun for £155 by sending a deposit of £17·50. The idea that a magnum chambered pump action cut-off shotgun with a 24½ in detachable barrel should be available through the post to anybody who has passed his perfunctory test is self-evidently unacceptable. I shall be sorry if the Home Secretary does not make it clear in his speech that, despite the vacuity of his amendment, he intends to take the action against shotguns that the country expects of him and that the country wants.
  Unless there is an individual shotgun certificate, it will be impossible to have any real check on or control over the guns that are in general use. It will be impossible to check on the security in which those guns and the ammunition that they use are kept, and it will make impossible the setting up of a firearms register which the police rightly regard as essential for proper control. The combination of an indefinite and extended number of guns available on
  32
  one certificate and the availability of those guns through the post by mail order is an impossible situation and cannot continue.
  I know that farmers will regard the individual certificate as a burden. However, it is an example of the inconvenience that legitimate owners will have to bear in the interests of public safety. Even for legitimate owners and users there must be regulations governing the carrying of firearms and ammunition in public places.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: According to an article on the front page of the Manchester Evening News, Members of Parliament can bring private weaponry into the House for the purpose of club shooting. How does my right hon. Friend view that?
  Mr. Hattersley: I regard Members of Parliament as suitable for the same treatment as the general public. As I believe that, in general, gun club members and people who wish to spend their time in that way should be required to keep their guns and their ammunition at their gun club rather than carry them home each evening or leave them lying about, as I fear is sometimes the case, I believe that the same rule has to apply to the House of Commons gun club. Since one of the objects of the restrictions I propose is to stop the unnecessary carrying of guns and ammunition, I believe that, as is often the case, what applies to the general public ought to apply to us as well.
  One of the extraordinary features of the Hungerford tragedy was the revelation that licensed guns were kept in a car boot and were each day carried to work. The foreman of the man whose guns they were knew that they were in the boot, and nobody is quite sure whether the car and the guns within it were unlawful or whether the law was dubious on the matter. Carrying guns in such circumstances ought to be an obvious and automatically prosecutable offence, as would the carrying of knives in similar circumstances under the Home Secretary's proposal.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am listening to the right hon. Member with some interest. Is his proposal that nobody who is not a farmer or a member of a gun club shooting at targets of one kind or another should be allowed to possess a shotgun?
  Mr. Hattersley: Nobody who cannot demonstrate a legitimate need or use should be able to possess such a weapon. In the coming months the Home Secretary will define "legitimate need" and "legitimate use" of knives, swords and similarly edged weapons, and there is no reason in the world, except the different class interests involved, why he should not equally define the legitimate use of guns. If he can do it for knives, he can do it for guns. The only thing that separates the two principles, which is why the hon. Members on the Government Benches have suddenly come to life, is that guns are owned by one class of people and knives are feared to be owned by a different class in society.
  It ought to be an automatically prosecutable offence to carry a gun in a public place when it is unnecessary to do so. The law ought to be explicit. Guns ought to be transported in public only when it is unavoidably necessary. Ammunition should be carried only in the same essential circumstances. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr.

  33
  Litherland) about the House of Commons gun club, that there is no need for gun club members to carry home every night either their guns or their ammunition.
  Mr. David Ashby rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether he agrees that there should be no automatic right to carry guns through crowded cities or to leave shotguns unattended in the back of Land Rovers in market squares.
  Mr. Ashby: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever visited a gun club? Has he seen that, by their very nature, they are normally situated in remote places, where they cause minimum disturbance in their neighbourhood, and that nearly always the gun club building is a shed that can be kicked open? Does he really think that that is the sort of place in which guns should be kept?
  Mr. Hattersley: I would place an absolute obligation on gun clubs to provide circumstances in which the guns can be kept securely without fear and without doubt. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that gun clubs are the ramshackle buildings that he describes, that seems quite extraordinary, because I suspect that some members leave their guns overnight in such ramshackle buildings. The suggestion that guns are left in those circumstances seems far more frightening than the situation that I was describing. There should be an obligation on gun clubs to have a secure place where members' guns and ammunition can be kept. The only argument against that is vested interest and special pleading.
  As well as there being legitimate occasions when guns of a sort can be used and carried, and therefore there being a necessity to prescribe the occasions when the carrying of guns of all sorts is illegal, some guns should not be possessed or used in any circumstances. We ought to prohibit the private sale and private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I know that some collectors and vociferous gun club members will argue that the possession of a Kalashnikov is essential to the pursuit of their hobby or pleasure. However, their freedom to pursue their leisure activity has to be weighed against the freedom of the general public from fear of sudden mayhem and casual slaughter.
  That essential freedom requires us to prohibit the sale of guns which in no circumstances should it be legitimate to use for amusement or pleasure. In my view, it also requires us to prohibit the sale of guns through any form of mail order. I know that the way in which sales are promoted through the Country Sports magazine is slightly more elegant than the methods employed by the martial arts bulletins, but the same principle ought to apply. Guns ought not to be bought and sold through the post.
  The stop-and-search principle that the Home Secretary described so honestly in terms of his knife legislation ought to apply also to guns. If, as we should, we define the circumstances in which it is acceptable to possess a knife, we must also provide a similar definition for firearms. If youths in the inner cities are to be searched for knives, we cannot allow more prosperous adults to hang around country public houses with shotguns in the boots of their cars, or allow ammunition to be carried carelessly and pointlessly from place to place.
  The proposals that I have made for the strict control of firearms seem so reasonable to me, and I believe to the general public, that it is astonishing that the Home
  34
  Secretary is not prepared to support them. They are supported by the Police Federation, I understand by most of the chief constables and I believe overwhelmingly by the general public. I ask the Home Secretary's support for them, because I believe that a strong statement now will lead to the urgent action that the country demands.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If the right hon. Gentleman is serious, as I am sure he is, about reducing murder and mayhem on the streets, will he explain why the Labour party has voted in the last four years against the prevention and suppression of terrorism legislation?
  Mr. Hattersley: I look forward to dealing with that subject when it comes up for debate in about a month's time. I had the privilege of being the first shadow Home Secretary to argue that we should vote against that provision, and I shall vote against it and urge my hon. Friends to vote against it when it again comes before the House.
  I say two things in answer to the obliquely relevant question of the hon. Gentleman. First, the only way to combat terrorism is to drive a wedge between the real terrorists and the law-abiding population with whom they cohabit. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 encourages terrorism by alienating the law-abiding population of Ireland. Secondly. I am struggling today, though I did not so struggle on that occasion, to find a measure of agreement between the parties on an issue about which I think the general public want to see as much agreement as possible. The trivial intervention of the hon. Gentleman will only underline the clear truth of the debate, which is that the Government do not want unanimity on this subject. They want to appear tough and to talk tough, but they want to collapse at the first threatened response from the gun lobby and from the country interests. That has been demonstrated by every bit of gibberish that has come from the Government Benches this afternoon.
  I want agreement on the nature and the timing of the measures. I repeat — I doubt whether the Home Secretary will deny it — that the earliest opportunity for the new measures to become law is for clauses to be spatchcocked to the Criminal Justice Bill that is going through the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, a week last Wednesday, his officials told me that that Bill could not possibly become law until the middle of next year. That is absurd. A Bill should be presented to the House before Christmas. The right Bill — a tough, just and effective Bill — would have a swift passage. I hope that then, if not today, the agreement of the House will be obtained and will do more than strengthen the regulations. I hope that it will strike a blow against not only the improper use and possession of guns, but against the gun culture that is developing in Britain. That gun culture is not country sports and organised clubs, but the nightmare world of guns that is glamourised by some television programmes and newspapers. It is worth remembering that before Hungerford, when Rambo became a figure of hatred and fear, Rambo was a word that was used as praise and as the description of a hero in half our tabloid newspapers.
  What I had hoped, when I believed that there could be unanimity today, and what I still hope will be possible through discussion, is that a message can come from the House of Commons not only that guns are acceptable in

  35
  our society only when they are used under the most stringent controls, but that in other circumstances they are illegal and that those who break the law, whoever they may be, are not heroes but criminals and will receive the most severe penalties.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the time has come for a strengthened system of firearms controls: welcomes the announcement by the Home Secretary on 22 September of the main conclusions of the study of ways in which firearms legislation might be improved: supports the need for further urgent but careful and detailed consideration of other possible measures under review: and endorses the Government's intention to announce shortly the outcome of this examination and to introduce new firearms legislation during this session of Parliament".
  I suppose that it is something that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should believe that he is encouraging the Government rather than obstructing and holding us back. He will understand that that represents a change to Home Office Ministers. I hope that it will apply to the other proposals that we shall introduce for the greater protection of the public. But the right hon. Gentleman's account of the Government's attitude was ludicrous, and the reason why he gave that account emerged not in his text but in what he said under challenge. The strong tinge of class warfare came right through his proposal and undermined the pretence that he was trying to make of searching for central ground on which we could all travel. That point will emerge as I describe the Government's attitude.
  I go this far with the right hon. Gentleman: this is a timely debate. The Opposition's motion is concerned solely with firearms but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government are engaged in a substantial overhaul of the law which controls the possession, sale and use of many types of weapon, including but not confined to firearms. We have a simple purpose. Those controls are part of crime prevention, and if we can find a reasonable way to strengthen them we shall add to the protection given to the citizen and to the security of our homes, streets and places of work.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, we propose to ban the manufacture and sale of weapons such as hand claws, knuckle dusters and death stars, for which we believe there is no legitimate use. We propose a radical change in the law on the carrying of knives. Both proposals will be included as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. I mention them because it is important that the public, and especially the legitimate shooters, should understand that our proposals on firearms will be one part of the general effort which I have described to strengthen public safety.
  Strong action is required in relation to the three types of weapons that I have mentioned: martial arts weapons, knives and firearms. But the danger from each of them is different. That is where, to some extent, I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The ban on the manufacture and sale of martial arts weapons is justified. With knives, the danger is overwhelmingly the concealed carrying of such weapons. There can be no licensing system for knives, so we must act, as we propose, on the
  36
  carrying of knives. There is a licensing system for firearms, and the right hon. Gentleman spent most of his speech discussing how that licensing system should be strengthened.
  The right hon. Gentleman also urged a reversal of proof on the carrying of firearms such as the one that I propose, which he will support, on the carrying of knives. I do not wish to draft for the Opposition, but I suppose that they have roughly this sort of proposal in mind:
  "A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him)"—
  the onus of proof has shifted—
  "he has with him in a public place a loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm."
  That is a rough summary of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, shifting the onus of proof on the carrying of firearms, and it is contained in section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968. If he reads that, as I hope he now will, he will see that the law as it stands reasonably defines the proposition that he spent several minutes criticising me for not having put forward.
  Mr. Hattersley: I will give the Home Secretary credit for not realising the mistake that he has made. He misunderstands the position. I want a much clearer definition of when firearms can and cannot be carried and the circumstances in which they can be carried between one place and another. What he now accepts—if he did not accept it before this afternoon, he has heard his hon. Friends baying for its continuance this afternoon — is that guns can be carried unnecessarily between gun club and home. That is what I want to prohibit, and it is not covered by the Act.
  Mr. Hurd: When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to shift the burden of proof on the carrying of firearms, he was clearly unaware that it had been shifted in the 1968 Act. The main thrust of his proposal is already in the law.
  There are two pools of firearms in Britain, one legal and the other illegal. The number of serious offences involving firearms has increased by 61 per cent. since 1975, although the proportion of serious offences involving firearms has remained much the same. As regards illegal firearms, the problem is one not of the law, but of enforcement by the police. As regards firearms which are now legally held, on which the right hon. Gentleman concentrated, we should be clear about our realistic aims. There is no point in pretending that by making changes in the law we could guarantee the safety of the public against the quiet, withdrawn citizen who answers every question, fills in every form and keeps every law until the moment comes when he commits an atrocious crime. We cannot give Hungerford an absolute guarantee against Ryan.
  Nevertheless, we must strengthen the law. I have made some proposals and I am considering others. As the House knows, we began to look at the legislation afresh earlier in the summer in the context of suggestions that it was time to have another amnesty. But of course — I do not quarrel with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put this point — the disaster at Hungerford accelerated and widened the scope of that work. No one who visited Hungerford in those days could fail to be struck by the contrast between the peacefulness of the town and the hurricane of violence which struck it that afternoon. The sympathy which we all felt, and which we felt again after

  37
  the murders in Wolverhampton and the recent indiscriminate shootings in Bristol, has not ebbed away. It is right that our sympathy for those who suffered should, among other things, take the form of a determination to look more sharply at the law governing the legal possession of firearms. We must do whatever we sensibly can to ensure that legal authority is not given to dangerous people and to ensure that guns which are legally authorised do not pass thereafter into dangerous hands.
  A balance must be struck. The House would not be taking the matter seriously if it did not fully recognise the wide variety of legitimate, indeed often admirable and highly disciplined, ways in which firearms are used in this country. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook recognised that. There is the case of the farmer who needs to keep the vermin on his farm under control. There are sportsmen who practise country sports. Above all, there are other sportsmen who belong to clubs, who shoot in national and international competitions and who pride themselves on a tradition of discipline and self-regulation. No one who has visited Bisley — as I did for the first time last year — would fall into the silly trap of denouncing the principle of private ownership and private use of firearms in this country in sweeping terms. We have tried to weigh all that up.
  Mr. Ron Davies: No doubt the Home Secretary will recall the exchanges that we had across the Dispatch Box 16 months ago when he assured the House that he and his fellow Home Office Ministers saw no need to review firearms legislation. There is no doubt that the shadow of Hungerford is hanging over this debate and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to that. However, legitimate shooting interests in my constituency and others in south Wales have put it to me that the proposals that the Government intend to introduce and those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark brook would never of themselves prevent a repetition of the events in Hungerford. Will the Home Secretary address his mind and his comments to the particular set of circumstances at Hungerford and explain how his proposals would prevent Michael Ryan or someone like Ryan from doing the same thing again?
  Mr. Hurd: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes he should listen to those passages that immediately precede his intervention. I have just dealt with that point. I said that there can be no absolute guarantee for Hungerford against Ryan. Nevertheless, the work that we started before Hungerford, which has been accelerated and extended since then and in the light of other shootings, is designed to shift the balance substantially in the interests of public safety and the objectives that I have just stated.
  We propose to keep the main categories of regulation under the Firearms Act 1968. Fully automatic weapons such as machine guns are already prohibited. They require my special authority for their purchase and possession. Authorities are normally granted only to selected dealers involved in the import and export market. Also, under the existing system, rifles, pistols and shotguns with barrels less than 24 inches in length fall under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and require a firearms certificate. That means that a good reason is required for each weapon to be held and details are provided. Shotguns with barrels of 24 inches or more may be purchased or possessed on
  38
  shotgun certificate, and the test for the issue of such a certificate is mainly one of good character. That is the existing system.
  One of the weapons used by Ryan was a 7·62 mm calibre self-loading Kalashnikov rifle. That weapon has a magazine capacity and rate of fire that makes it especially dangerous. I can see no justification for the possession of such weapons in private hands and I believe that they should become prohibited weapons. I also propose that burst fire weapons, carbines and certain short-barrelled shotguns should also become prohibited.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend's line of thought and the policy that he is touching upon, but has he yet given any thought to the subject that has been raised with me by many people who own the kind of weapons that he is describing, that of possible compensation? Someone may have owned a perfectly legal item, but that may be rendered illegal because of events. Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider that point?
  Mr. Hurd: I am aware of that point. As my hon. Friend said has been put to us increasingly over recent weeks. There are substantial difficulties of principle and practice in going down that road. However, I would be happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend.
  The ease with which military and other weapons can be converted from one classification to another has also been a worry. In many cases, such weapons can be restored to their original condition without the need for professional skill. That is why I propose that where a firearm is converted from a higher classification into a lower one., it will retain its original higher classification. In other words, once a Bren gun always a Bren gun, no matter what changes are made to it. That is an important clarification of the law.
  I am proposing a number of significant changes in relation to shotguns. The loophole whereby visitors to Great Britain may buy and possess shotguns without a shotgun certificate will be closed, and more satisfactory arrangements will be made for visiting sportsmen. I have also decided that pump action and self-loading shotguns should be brought under the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 so that a good reason will be necessary for their possession. I believe that there must be a statutory obligation on shotgun holders to store their shotguns securely when they are not being used.
  We have already announced our intention to raise the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime to life imprisonment, and we shall additionally raise the maximum penalty for being in possession of. a shotgun without a certificate in line with the similar offence in respect of firearms. That offence will become triable as an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment or a fine or both. We have already tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to that effect.
  It is important to take illegally held firearms out of circulation as far as we can and that is why we intend to hold a firearms amnesty during the course of next year. Some people have said that the amnesty should take place immediately. I doubt the wisdom of that. If we are to derive maximum benefit from an amnesty, it needs to be properly worked out. Procedural guidance will need to be

  39
  given to all police forces and a publicity campaign will be necessary so that holders of illegal weapons know what to do. It makes sense that an amnesty should coincide with changes to the law so that suitable arrangements can be made for the disposal of weapons held illegally and under existing legislation and also weapons that the new legislation will no longer permit.
  I am considering other suggestions and that is why the debate is timely. We shall look carefully at proposals from both sides of the House. However, I make no apology for not producing legislation or a detailed package in the first days after the recess. The arrangements that Parliament will work out on this subject must be robust enough to last perhaps another 20 years. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook acknowledged in one part of his speech —although he contradicted it in others—that means that legitimate interests must be consulted. The complications and technical details must be worked out.
  Mr. Richard Holt: I understand that it will take some time for the law to reach the statute book. However, in the meantime, are chief constables allowed to take the law into their own hands by refusing to issue certificates to legitimate people who apply for them as I believe is the position with the Metropolitan Police and others who refuse to work within the current laws? Are the police allowed to do that?
  Mr. Hurd: Various chief officers and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis have made statements, but of course they are operating within existing law. The Home Office is not dictating how they should operate the law because that is the business of the police. However, we are giving them guidance during this interim stage that they should act as strictly as is compatible with the law. That is the reasonable way of handling the immediate situation.
  Mr. Hattersley rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I will deal with that point in a moment.
  We are not interested in purely cosmetic proposals which sound good when first advanced, but which would simply add to the substantial burden that the police carry without improving the protection of the citizen. That must be a consideration. We must also consider the extra points in addition to those that I announced towards the end of September at Torquay.
  I can give the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook an example of a further measure which we are considering, but which we have not yet decided upon. We are considering whether it would be right to link the purchase of shotgun ammunition to the production of a shotgun certificate. To some extent, that would deal with the point about ammunition that has been raised by many people. Other suggestions have been made along those lines. They are worth considering and we shall consult the interested parties with a view to producing a package of measures by the end of November if things go smoothly which can then be introduced to the House before Christmas in the form of a firearms Bill. That is roughly what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was pressing me to say. There is no reason why he should hang on my every utterance. He has other and better things to do. When I recently spoke to the Metropolitan branch of the Police Federation—
  40
  my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was there — I made that point and set out the timing. I am glad to confirm it now.
  Progress after that, of course, is not entirely within the Government's hands. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point. If precedent is anything to go by, both Houses of Parliament will want to look at the matter with some care. But, given that there will be a separate Bill, and if there is reasonable co-operation, there is no reason why it should not move fairly swiftly on to the statute book. Indeed, it could be on the statute book well before the Criminal Justice Bill, which is an immense Bill that the House will want to consider again—it is now in another place — in which our proposals on knives and martial arts weapons will be contained.
  Mr. Hattersley: Hanging on to the Home Secretary's every word, as I do, I recall what he said about guns, but I also recall what he explicitly said to me about knives a fortnight ago. We were then told that the knife element in his stronger weapons proposals will have to wait for the Criminal Justice Bill and will not be on the statute book until the summer. Since he has received from me a degree of co-operation, which I suspect he did not anticipate but which I gave him because I believed it to be right, may we have a Bill before Christmas which refers to firearms and knives? With a proper degree of co-operation, can we not move forward as fast as the public expect us to move on this matter?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman ingeniously shifted his ground. A few moments ago, he thunderously pressed me to produce a separate firearms Bill which could be pushed through reasonably speedily. I told him, with documentary proof, that that was already my public intention. The more that one puts into a Bill, the slower it tends to be. The knife amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill will be forthcoming shortly. They will go into the Bill. I obviously hope that the Bill will go forward speedily. I am encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's reaction. I hope that he will have a word with some of his lawyers and some of his right hon. and learned Friends, particularly those in another place. I hope that they will carefully weigh what he said about the onus of proof and, indeed, the stop and search power. Subject to the wishes of the Members of both Houses, I obviously want to make speedy progress with both sets of proposals.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: From the point of view of the police service, my right hon. Friend's timetable is convenient. Although the Police Federation has put forward a clear policy—I believe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to it—the police see a need carefully to examine some of the complex points that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. The police would find it perfectly reasonable that there should be at least a few more weeks in which to consider the matter before we rush into firm legislation.
  Mr. Hurd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The police are not a homogenous entity. Police officers in different parts of the country hold different views. No doubt, they have expressed them. There is no reason why they should have a single united view on every detail. My hon. Friend is correct.
  I see the firearms proposals not as isolated measures or as something that should be rushed through as a hasty

  41
  response to days of intense grief and anger. Over recent months since the election, in several policy sectors, we have been planning a substantial strengthening of the citizen's defences against violence.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was waiting for an appropriate moment to intervene. The Home Secretary is asking for suggestions. Why not look at Northern Ireland? As he well knows, in Northern Ireland there are different gun laws, different rules about the holding of guns at home, and different rules about police inspections. Political murders in Northern Ireland are not committed with such guns but with a small number of guns that move from place to place. The House supported the changes that were made about 10 years ago. It is worth looking at Northern Ireland where the problem is greater.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was certainly not trying to wreck my peroration but was trying to bring in a genuine point. We are looking at the Northern Ireland experience.
  I wish to put the subject into the general context of planning the substantial strengthening of the citizen's defences against violence. The new Bill will be a crucial part of that process. I hope that, when the House examines it, its purpose and main provisions will have overwhelming support. Clear thought and firm action have to go together on the matter. Both are needed in the matter, and we shall supply plenty of both.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): I am one of the rare members of the shooting fraternity on the Opposition side. As a legitimate target shooter, I realise that the existing firearms legislation when enforced works well. Ryan acted illegally when he carried his weapons around the streets. Perhaps we should ask why he was not stopped long before he performed his dreadful deeds.
  It would be impossible to legislate against Kalashnikovstyle weapons. The action in such weapons is used in many forms of firearms and in many forms of sport. It is used in the most popular pistol shooting weapon in international competition, in which the United Kingdom does extremely well. I am sure that the Home Secretary knows that the United Kingdom has won many gold medals for the sporting use of firearms. As a responsible shooter, I realise that the House owes it to the public to take into account the fact that shotguns do not come under firearms legislation. I cannot see how bringing in pump action, automatic and semi-automatic shotguns under firearms category one legislation is' responsible when, at the moment, thousands of other shotguns do not come under any legislation and there seems to be no intention for them to do so. I am certain that the responsible shotgun lobby would be quite happy for them to be brought under firearms legislation.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven if my remarks are couched with the town of Hungerford uppermost in my mind. Hungerford is in my constituency, and I was there on the afternoon of 19 August. Nobody who was in the town on that day will ever forget the events that took place. Until that day, nobody thought that one man could have the will or the firepower to massacre so many people
  42
  —a massacre the like of which has not been seen in any other part of the United Kingdom. But it happened, and one must recognise that a watershed was reached as a result of that dreadful tragedy. The debate is only one result of the killings. Sixteen people were shot dead, another 14 were wounded, and then, of course, Ryan shot himself.
  I said a moment ago that I thought that the Hungerford tragedy was a watershed in the history of our country, at least in terms of killing with weapons. That is true and it might be said to be an endorsement of the view that our firearms laws were, up to that date, adequate, as we always believed them to be. They are said to be the most restrictive in western Europe. However, after 19 August 1987 we have to recognise that they are wanting and I shall suggest to the House one or two ways in which they could he improved.
  I appreciated the visits by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary so soon after the tragedy. They saw the aftermath of the massacre. I welcome the fact that immediately after their visits they promised to conduct the review already in hand at a greater pace than might have been the case if Hungerford had not happened.
  I digress to put on record how splendidly the police, fire brigade and ambulance services met the emergency at the time of the crisis and how subsequently the social services and voluntary organisations in Berkshire and Hungerford came to the help of the bereaved and injured.
  We are fortunate in the man who is now mayor of Hungerford, because he brought a cool leadership to the town at a time of great difficulty for it and its citizens. That cool leadership has helped to bring back the town to something like normality. But, of course, the private grieving will continue for a long time. I am grateful to the trustees for the way in which they have handled the appeal fund and to all those people throughout the country who contributed so generously. The appeal fund now stands at £1 million. That is a remarkable tribute to the generosity of the British people towards a small town facing a massive tragedy.
  The Hungerford tragedy invoked a wide range of reactions. It resulted in calls for a ban on all firearms and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), shouts of protest from the shooting lobby that their sport, the third most popular in Britain after fishing and golf, has been pilloried because of the actions of one deranged man. I admit to no more than a passing interest in shooting but if I had an interest I have no.doubt that I should feel the same and make my own protest. That is why the Home Secretary was correct when he said, soon after the tragedy, that in any review of the firearms laws a balance should be struck between carrying out his responsibility to ensure that society is properly protected and enabling shooters to enjoy their sport.
  Immediately following the shootings, I was asked what step I thought should be taken to ensure that such an event could not happen again. I listed four suggestions. The first was that nobody should be allowed to possess a semiautomatic rifle at home—as Ryan had and had used in so many of the killings, replacing one spent magazine with another as he went his terrible way. The second was that the number of firearms held at home should be limited. Ryan had five. The third was that ammunition held at home should be limited. Ryan fired over 100 rounds.

  43
  Fourthly, I suggested that shooting clubs should become places with a secure armoury where weapons should be kept.
  Some hon. Members will be disappointed that the Home Secretary did not say something about shooting clubs. We expect gun shops to be secure places from which weapons cannot be easily stolen. I do not see why we should not expect that, when guns are sold, they are kept in an equally secure place.
  I read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Police Superintendents Association in September when he said that he intended to prohibit high-powered self-loading rifles. He repeated that promise this afternoon. I welcome everything that he said about high-powered self-loading rifles, burst fire weapons and short-barrelled smooth-bore guns. I also welcome his announcement that other pump action and self-loading shotguns with a greater than average fire capability are to be put on a par with firearms for certification.
  I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about another amnesty, but in conversation with a person involved in the last amnesty—an armourer at Weedon—I was surprised, as I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will he, to be told that all the weapons handed in were subsequently sold back to the gun trade. If that was so, what is the use of an amnesty? Surely the idea of an amnesty is that weapons are taken out of circulation. If someone hands in an antique pistol only to find that subsequently it is passed back to the trade and a profit is made out of it, I can see no real gain. I hope that at the next amnesty we will be sure that weapons handed in are not recirculated.
  I am left with my suggestions for limiting the number of firearms, the quantity of ammunition that may be held at home and the role of gun clubs, of which there are 8,000 in this country.
  I think that I am right in stating that membership of a gun club is one of the first requirements for the granting of a firearms certificate in nearly all cases. If that is so, it suggests that gun club membership confers a status on those seeking weapons that they would not have without such membership. If the gun club has that status and importance in the eyes of the police, why do so few rules apply to their establishment? For instance, they are not required to have secure premises, a range or other shooting facilities. I am told that anybody can start a gun club, just as anybody can join without being asked to show his or her proficiency or being required to undergo any training. I cannot help feeling that new regulations should be introduced.
  If we are to have an overhaul of existing gun laws, gun clubs should be brought within the remit of the review. Gun club premises should be seen to be important in terms of whether a person has the right to possess a weapon. If clubs had secure armouries, it would not be an imposition to insist that only one firearm could be held in a safe place at home and that additional weapons should be held at the club. The same could apply to ammunition.
  The firearms certificate—which should also apply to shotguns — should have a photograph of the owner attached to establish absolute identity. Ammunition and ammunition-making equipment should never be sold to a person who does not have a certificate bearing a photograph. The same should apply to shotgun owners.
  44
  Establishing who has guns and who has not turns to some extent on whether we believe that one certificate with a number of guns printed on it is adequate or whether separate certificates for each weapon should be required. I do not have strong views either way, but I believe that a national gun register, rather as our cars are held on a national computer, would enable the police to keep a check on who owns which weapons, and in particular, when guns are sold, to know to whom they are being sold. That would be a step towards giving the police additional powers and controls which I suspect they want. There is much to be said for constabularies creating firearms squads to specialise in gun control, which I believe applies to Sussex.
  If there is to be really effective firearms control, we also have to find a way of stopping the huge illegal trade in arms, which is now of frightening proportions. My remarks have concentrated on the Hungerford massacre because the killings were carried out by one man in legal possession of all his weapons. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, no law could have prevented some part of the tragedy because it is not guns which kill people, but people firing the guns. Nevertheless, if Michael Ryan had possessed only one weapon and a limited amount of ammunition, and if that weapon had not been semi-automatic, I have no doubt that most of his victims would be alive today. That is why some improvements to our firearms laws are now so necessary.
  5.1 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Like many hon. Members who have called for greater control over firearms since the Hungerford massacre, my postbag has been full of letters from the gun lobby and from sports enthusiasts protesting vigorously about the proposed changes in firearms regulations. When considering the issue of gun control, the recreational use of firearms should be secondary to the need for greater public safety. Although civil liberties implications arise from greater gun control, these should be considered subsidiary to ensuring that the public are adequately protected.
  We have seen in the United States of America how the enshrinement in the constitution of the right to carry guns has led to havoc in some states. In California people have started shooting each other in traffic jams, and in one month there were nine such deaths. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are approaching that situation here, but unless we do something now to curb the use of firearms we will have to face the consequences and hold ourselves responsible for future deaths.
  I accept that the Hungerford massacre probably would have happened to some limited degree whatever the circumstances. We cannot prevent someone running amok, but we can restrict the amount of damage that he or she does. It is clear that the type of weaponry and ammunition that Ryan had led to far more deaths than would have been the case had he been restricted.
  We have learnt nothing new since the Hungerford and Bristol incidents. Many people were calling for greater control of firearms before those incidents, but they have focused our minds on the problem. We should be considering that problem now and passing the necessary legislation to tackle it, not with knee-jerk reactions, but with carefully thought out proposals that will stand the

  45
  test of time and prevent deaths. I am therefore pleased that this debate has been called today, and I endorse the call for some urgency in reaching conclusions.
  I assure the Home Secretary that we will support the following measures in any legislation that is brought before the House. The first is a ban on the private sale and use of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. As I have said, what many of us found particularly shocking about Hungerford was the scale of havoc and the number of deaths that one man could cause in one day by going over the brink. He had access to what many of us would consider to be a weapon of war rather than a weapon for recreational use. I am sure that I am not alone in not knowing before that incident that such weapons were lawfully possessed by citizens of this country.
  It is clear that had Ryan had access only to a shotgun instead of a Kalashnikov rifle the death toll would have been much smaller, and instead of hundreds of bullets being fired, probably no more than 25 would have been fired before he was stopped. Therefore, the banning of what are clearly war weapons and weapons that have other than recreational use must be a first priority.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Lady is giving the impression that the choice available to Michael Ryan at Hungerford was either a Kalashnikov or a shotgun. However, a range of weaponry between those two will not be affected by the Home Secretary's proposals. It would have been quite conceivable for Michael Ryan to roam the streets of Hungerford using a sporting rifle or any of the bolt action rifles which are freely available and which will not be affected by the Home Secretary's proposals. He could have wreaked his havoc using those weapons that have the same fire power, velocity and magazine capacity, except that they are bolt action instead of semi-automatic. Why, therefore, does the hon. Lady think that the banning of semi-automatic weapons would in any way have prevented what happened at Hungerford?
  Mrs. Barnes: I accept that many weapons would have wreaked considerable havoc, and I endorse the suggestion that all weapons should be looked at carefully for potential inclusion in the restriction of firearms.
  We should also look closely at tightening the procedures for licensing firearms. In common with the proposers of the motion, I find it ridiculous that firearms owners should be required to have only one certificate for any number of firearms. Each gun should be subject to a certificate, and only the person obtaining that certificate should he allowed to use that gun. In issuing that first certificate, the police must be very sure that the person who was given the licence is fit to be in charge of a firearm and that he has a genuine need to be in possession of it.
  The police should also make detailed inquiries into how and where that weapon and ammunition will be stored. In particular, it would seem sensible to have the firearm and ammunition stored separately. The police must also be particularly vigilant when they issue individual firearm licences for further guns. The applicants should provide the police with very clear evidence and reasons why they need those additional guns. Spot checks by police on how existing firearms are used and stored before issuing additional certificates might be a further way of ensuring that firearms are issued only to people fit to possess them.
  Thirdly, the Home Secretary should consider a further point about the storage of firearms. It is clear that there
  46
  are many categories of guns, especially those used for sporting purposes, that do not need to be stored in the home. I suggest that they be stored in the club concerned, under very safe conditions. Any sporting gun owner would then have to have very good reasons for storing his gun at home.
  Finally, let me refer to a matter which has already been touched on today, but which I feel needs more attention— how violence in the media, and particularly on television, affects attitudes towards guns. Obviously this does not have the immediate effect of some of the legislation that we are considering, but it could be of critical importance to what is likely to be happening in 20 or 30 years' time. Programmes that children and teenagers love, such as "The A Team", which many of us consider perfectly innocent, show ordinary citizens holding guns and using them regularly. They illustrate very poorly what actually happens when those guns are fired. My two and a half year old son is convinced that people go, "Bang, bang", lie down for 10 minutes and then get up again. Children are growing up thinking that the use of guns is easy and acceptable, and that their use sorts out problems. They do not consider the consequences.
  I suggest that a Royal Commission he appointed to consider violence in the media and to examine its effects on the minds of children and on the future of this country. Hon. Members may scoff, but we are considering attitudes, not just the control of weaponry. We are considering the mentality of the people who use that weaponry. We must not disregard the implications of what may be happening. I am not presupposing that we will find strong effects. I merely suggest that we should consider the matter very carefully and come to conclusions that are based on empirical evidence, not on prejudice.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I speak as the Member in whose constituency most of the recent Bristol tragedies took place. I know that the matter is currently sub judice, and that I therefore cannot comment on the events involved. However, it is significant that, although four people tragically lost their lives, the events in Bristol — following, as they did, those in Hungerford — seem almost to have been missed. Let me merely join my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in congratulating the police and fire services on their speedy and well-co-ordinated action on the day of the tragic incidents in Bristol. It was greatly appreciated by my constituents.
  Let me say as an aside that I should like the Home Office to consider holding discussions with the media about the handling of such events. My constituents suffered substantial pressure, in some instances emotional, from members of the media attempting to establish facts, family contacts and so forth. I realise that the media have a duty to perform in such circumstances, but they must recognise the pressures faced by ordinary individuals when such tragic events take place.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I broadly welcome the Government's proposals as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 September. However, I do not believe that — as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seems to have inferred —such proposals can be introduced at the drop of a hat, or that they will solve all the problems. Rash and fast legislation is usually bad

  47
  legislation — and bad legislation provides opportunities for the criminal element and others who wish to circumvent the law to do so. While I should like the legislation to be on the statute book as soon as possible, I consider it unrealistic for the Opposition Front Bench to propose such timetables.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to have inferred that the only people interested in shooting are members of the upper class. That represents a complete misunderstanding of ordinary people. As has already been said, shooting is the third most popular sport in this country. Since the events in Bristol and in Hungerford, I have been staggered to discover how many of my constituents own guns — and I do not represent one of the great shire counties. I have checked some facts. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not present, I shall make a comparison only between my constituency and that of Dewsbury, which I think may be relevant.
  According to figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, my constituency is 40 per cent. middle class and Dewsbury 43 per cent. Fifteen per cent of Dewsbury's constituents are professional and managerial people, while the figure in my constituency is 11 per cent. My constituency, therefore, is substantially more ordinary and working class than Dewsbury. But my constituency contains large numbers of gun holders, the vast majority of whom are gravely concerned about the events in Bristol and Hungerford, and want correct and reasonable restrictions to be imposed on those who carry and use guns.
  I suggest that, first, there should be stronger requirements for securing guns held in the home. I do not consider it realistic to require that all guns should be held by gun clubs in club houses. That would make them all too easy a target for the IRA and similar terrorist groups, and would be to the long-term disadvantage of the community, because—as has been pointed out—many such clubs are in remote places. It would be far too easy to break into them over a long period, however much security was installed.
  The clarification of section 19 of the Firearms Act is important, and it would be worthwhile for it to be re-emphasised during the passage of any future firearms Bill.
  I consider that the most suitable way of certifying all guns held would be to place a record of all the guns held by an individual to whom a certificate is granted on that certificate. I do not go along with the suggestion that there should be separate certificates, because, given the scale of gun-holding in this country, the administrative burden imposed on the police would be substantial.
  Mr. Sayeed: It is obvious from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he is keen to ensure that guns held privately, including shotguns, are held rather more securely than they are at present, to make it more difficult to remove a gun from a house when a theft takes place. Does my hon. Friend agree that at present it is far too easy for a gun to be stolen, whether or not it is securely held, and for the owner not to report it? Requiring the number to be put on a certificate, as my hon. Friend suggests, would force the owner of a shotgun to report the theft, and there would be more effective control against the stolen weapon entering the illegal market.
  Mr. Hayward: I agree. The aim of my proposal is to make a more accurate record of the possession and transmission of guns from one individual to another. The obligation on those who lose guns to report the loss would be that much greater, whether they lose them by accident or through theft.
  Let me touch on the question of accidental loss. It is all too easy to lose guns in transportation. Most of the comments made so far have concerned the storage of guns at home, but inevitably they will be transported from an individual's home to the place where they are to be fired.
  When transporting guns, most people seem to be somewhat carefree, flinging them on to the back seat of their cars, in the back of their Land-Rovers and in unlocked boots. There should be an obligation on an individual to store and transport guns sensibly and securely.
  One of the other matters that has concerned many people during the tragic events of this summer has been the large number of rounds available, and not only in the case of pump action guns. Ordinary individuals appear to carry large numbers of rounds with them. I do not have an easy solution to put forward regarding how many rounds it is appropriate for a person to store at home, but the Home Office should consider this matter carefully when preparing legislation.
  As a result of the events in Bristol only a few weeks ago, I have taken an interest in the magazines that are on sale in W H Smith and other general newsagents. I have been amazed by the style of advertisements and photographs that appear to be acceptable in what I would describe as ordinary shooting magazines. There must be some connection between the appeal of these advertisements and the response they provoke from readers. We should consider carefully whether such reputable organisations and companies — we must presume that dealers who advertise in these magazines are reputable — should put in such advertisements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) mentioned re-purchase. If prohibition is substantially extended, it will inevitably include some weapons which represent a fairly substantial level of expenditure for relatively low income earners who enjoy shooting. If prohibition is extended without any offer of re-purchase, there will inevitably be a tendency for people not to hand in weapons. There is, therefore, a danger that such people will sell illegally and that more weapons will be available to the criminal element in society. I recognise that there are difficulties of principle in this respect, but this point should be carefully considered.
  During the summer we have seen a number of tragic incidents in different parts of the country. My own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury have been harshly affected. I hope that the tragedies that we have witnessed recently will result in a sensible revision of the law, but not an over-hasty revision in an attempt to appease certain groups of people, because that would produce bad legislation.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. David Young: Everyone was shocked by the tragedy at Hungerford and I believe that the House wants to extend its sympathy to the people who suffered. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will take back to his constituency the concern and sympathy of both sides of the House.

  49
  We are not considering whether legislation could stop a Hungerford incident recurring, but we as a society must look carefully at the escalating crime wave and the availability of modern weapons technology. As legislators, we must ask, not only why Ryan was holding an automatic or a semi-automatic gun in his home, but why the Home Office was not asked to explain why our laws allowed that to happen, without prior feedback. We have to consider whether the legislation is working properly. It is difficult to obtain statistics about the entry of weapons into this country from the continent for illegal, criminal purposes. I am not anti-gun; I am a member of the House of Commons gun club, where I practise target shooting. I do not kill animals or people. There have been recent tragic incidents not only in Hungerford and Bristol, but in America and Australia. As legislators, we have to consider the wider aspects of this problem.
  Shotguns are the firearms used in most criminal activities, but I do not suppose that it makes much difference whether one is shot at close range by an automatic gun or a shotgun. Even as a member of the House of Commons gun club, I would not dream of keeping a weapon in my home. We are asking the police to supervise the holding of guns. The crime wave is escalating. Two-thirds of all crimes are not solved and the criminals are not brought to book. We must, therefore, address the problem of weapons being stolen in burglaries from the homes of legitimate users of guns. If a choice has to be made between sporting or other interests and the needs of society, the latter must predominate. Certain magazines glorify the use of weapons not for the protection of man but as a way of dominating his fellows. Survival clubs flourish in America, where people learn to use these weapons against their fellows.
  It is no use closing the door after the horse has bolted. Our legislation must be sufficiently modern and flexible to counter the escalating crime wave. The Hungerford tragedy was the result of a deranged mind, but that is all the more reason for society to be vigilant. If somebody is killed, however much we legislate we cannot bring him back to life.
  We should consider carefully the Northern Ireland experience. We should be much more strict about the number and the type of weapons that can be held. We should also examine more closely the credentials of those who say that they are gun dealers. Furthermore, these weapons should be held in much more secure places and not private homes. If I drive a vehicle I am expected to take out insurance and be responsible for its use. Such an element of responsibility must also fall on the gun holder.
  The House must face up to this issue. The Labour party did little about it when it was in power, and I doubt whether the Government would have done much had it not been for Hungerford. The Hungerford incident is a lesson that will remain with us. I hope that, as representatives of the British electorate, we will see what can be done to save any repetition of that incident by fore thought and not hind thought.
  5.30 pm
  Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) will forgive me if I do not exactly follow his line of argument, although I agree with much of what he said.
  I am sure that the House shares the distress of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)
  50
  over the Hungerford incident. My hon. Friend put the matter eloquently, and as we listened it was apparent to us all that he has been deeply touched by the events there. I urge my hon. Friend, whom I have known for a long time, to recognise that Michael Ryan was a one-off case and that he went berserk.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) referred to people going off the rails. Michael Ryan went berserk. If he had not had access to a Kalashnikov. he might have seized a bus or lorry and run into a queue of people and killed as many in that way. One must not overreact to the fact that this this weapon was available. It was available in an exceptional circumstance, and to an exceptional person who, if a Kalashnikov had not been available, would have found some other way of venting his spite on society.
  I support the measures which the Home Secretary announced he was thinking of taking when speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers on 22 September. It is obvious that any Home Secretary has to do something. Public feeling is very deep on this issue; it is not confined to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. The country was shattered by the offences at Hungerford; my right hon. Friend had to do more than make a gesture to quieten public opinion. The delicate balance that my right hon. Friend achieved in his speech on 22 September was about right; it would have been unthinkable for him to have done nothing. A good and sensible Home Secretary would not have bowed to the immediate pressures from the people of Hungerford, the Association of Chief Police Officers or from public opinion and introduced stringent and intransigent measures. As Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend has a very delicate job. Those who are concerned with shooting, as are several of my hon. Friends, realise that these measures will have a great effect on future civilian weapon possession.
  I am sure that the House is united on the Home Secretary's proposal to ban the Kalashnikov rifle completely. Many chief officers of police would not have licensed such a weapon in the first place. A failure of the Firearms Act 1968 was the excessive latitude that it gave to chief officers. The chief officer for the Hungerford area considered it proper and right to give a civilian the right to use a Kalashnikov and other repeating weapons, yet many other chief officers of police, to my certain knowledge, would have been very loath, even under the existing regulations, to have issued such a licence. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proposing that such weapons should no longer be available and that they are not needed in a civilian society.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Kalashnikov weapon, has been available and held in private hands for about 40 years?
  Sir John Farr: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's research is 100 per cent. correct. He will probably discover that after further consideration his statement is incorrect.
  I support my right hon. Friend's banning of all burst fire weapons and short-barrelled smooth-bore guns, thus bringing them within a prohibited category. In a peaceful society there is no justification for an individual's possession of such weapons.
  There has been a great outcry with regard to my right hon. Friend's third proposal. It is suggested that pump action and other self-loading shotguns be brought under

  51
  the same control that currently exists for rifles and pistols. That is the very least that my right hon. Friend could have done. The outcry has come from people who possess such weapons. They say that this proposal is desperately unfair and that proper compensation will not be forthcoming for those who have to forfeit their weapons. My right hon. Friend is not banning such weapons; he is saying that exceptionally good grounds will have to exist for their purchase and continued possession. Rightly, he intends to include them in the section 1 certificate. In this proposal he is saying that anybody who has an ordinary shotgun certificate will be unable to obtain special weapons, with the special capacities that they have. Those people have to be approved through the more stringent section 1 procedures and they will then be allowed to keep them. It may be that tens of thousands of people who currently hold such weapons will pass the necessarily stringent test to allow them to continue possessing them under the section 1 procedure. I agree with my right hon. Friend on the point about military and other weapons that can be converted.
  The final point that I should like to make relates to my right hon. Friend's proposals with regard to raising the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime to life imprisonment. I am sure that the House agrees that the penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime should carry a life sentence. I understand that that measure will be enacted in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I have, as always, a lingering doubt that if a man is apprehended carrying a weapon, even though he has no intention of using it, will receive a sentence of life imprisonment as well. I am not sure that the House is right in saying that if a man carries a weapon without the intention of using it he should still receive the same life sentence. I am not sure that that is the deterrent that the House would wish it to be.
  I fully agree with the approach that is outlined on the Order Paper. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested about the listing of all shotguns on an individual certificate would be difficult to implement because, as I tried to point out in an intervention, many shotguns do not have serial numbers. If the right hon. Gentleman asks the Birmingham gunmakers about this point I am sure that they will agree that one cannot diestamp on to an ancient but perfectly sound weapon without completely destroying it.
  The proposal of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook for a separate certificate for each weapon would cause a tremendous amount of book-work, even if it was worth it. Is he aware that about six million shotguns are in legal circulation today? He may say that he will see that five million of them are taken out of circulation but he should tell the House. The police computer centre, which would administer a system such as that, would break down and the cost of the proposal would be out of proportion.
  I have mentioned compensation. I feel that that matter should not affect the Government too much because the market will cope. It may be that many of the weapons held now on a shotgun certificate will continue to be held on a more stringent section 1 certificate and that the number of weapons for disposal will not choke up the demand.
  I have been closely associated with the Palace of Westminster rifle club for many years. It is open at any
  52
  time for inspection on the range. It is just a few yards away and many hon. Members and members of staff spend a lot of time there. We are proud of our security and the way in which our weapons are held. We are also proud of the armoury and of the personal supervision provided by instructors at all times.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that entirely endorses my point about gun clubs? If we can have that sort of security in our gun club in the Palace of Westminster, why should we expect anything less than that in other gun clubs throughout the country?
  Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend is right. Without being too naive, we try to set an example. That example is the very least one should expect in any of the many gun clubs in the country. The Palace range is inspected and licensed by Home Office inspectors and its use is restricted entirely to rifles.
  I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. I hope that he will press on with his approach which, as I said, is the right one. It is delicately balanced and sensible. We must not go overboard because of the events at Hungerford and Bristol, both of which were tragedies. We have to remember that a recent survey done by The Times showed that the firearms laws in Britain are generally much more stringent than in our European neighbours. We must bear that in mind. We have a strict system now and, by and large, it works well. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his amendment today.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Pat Wall: This debate arises primarily out of the tremendous horror of the Hungerford massacre. The people of Bradford—I represent one of the Bradford constituencies—have a close affinity with the people of Hungerford because the Hungerford tragedy took place some two years after ours. It involved massive loss of life and injury to citizens. There was enormous sympathy for Hungerford from the people of Bradford, and our local authority sent to Hungerford staff with tremendous skills and knowledge arising out of their experience of the terrible fire at Valley Parade football ground.
  The debate takes place in relation to Hungerford but is coloured by the events in Bristol, the shooting of a bailiff and young solicitor or solicitor's clerk in Wolverhampton and the terrible mass killings of a similar nature to Hungerford that have taken place in America and Australia. I recall watching one of a series of films about a hospital in south Chicago where the biggest cause of termination of pregnancy was gunshot wounds. That is the mirror of a society where guns are widely available. That is what it means in terms of social cost. I agree with so many people who have spoken today. There is no justification for automatic or semi-automatic guns to be available.
  I have spoken about Bradford and Hungerford, but I recall the other side of the issue. The day of the Bradford disaster had been a day of enormous celebration with the promotion of the football team from the third division to the second. I can recall as a young boy the pleasure I got from being taken by my father to the local home guard rifle club to shoot on a 25-yard range with a ·22 rifle. I had one enormous disadvantage in that I am totally incapable of winking with my left eye, and I had to wear a patch. My

  53
  excuse is that I gave up range shooting when Moshe Dayan and his patch became so popular, and I took up clay pigeon shooting. I have no axe to grind with people's legitimate right to participate and enjoy sport in that way.
  I enjoyed clay pigeon shooting with ordinary working people in my community on a Sunday morning at a simulated game shoot. However, I do not think that the right of people to engage in sport can avoid the fact that we live in a climate and at a time of growing violence, not only gun violence but violence in general. The number of offences involving firearms has increased four and a half times since 1972. It is true that that increase is concerned largely with damage to property because those figures show damage which exceeds £20. However, there is a growing use of pistols, shotguns and more sophisticated weapons in relation to crime. Therefore, the licensing of shotguns and the keeping of a register is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request to make and it should be done on the basis of individuals.
  I have one slight criticism of the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the grounds for my criticism arise from a general misunderstanding of the mail order business. I worked for three of the five big mail order companies in this country. Two of those five are among the largest employers in Bradford. I have noticed in debates in the House that when the mail order industry is debated it is assumed that the little advertisements one sees in various journals, often for the most dubious of products, are part of the mail order industry. The industry involves large companies. Two of the companies for which I worked sell shotguns. They sell them on an entirely responsible basis. The customer has to supply a shotgun certificate which is checked with the police before a gun is issued.
  I also agree with the system of registration. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the class point of view. I can see no reason why the farm labourers and garage mechanics with whom I first went shooting should not use the traditional means of paying for a shotgun over a period of weeks or months in the same way as a more wealthy person can buy a pair of matching guns at one of the better London shops.
  I end on this note. Violence is not divorced from society. One cannot draw general conclusions from an aberration such as the Hungerford disaster, but nor can one ignore the fact that we live in an increasingly divisive society. The factors that trigger off people with mental weaknesses are precisely the conflicts and tensions which arise primarily from the gross inequalities in our society — the poverty of so many people compared with the increasing and flaunted wealth of a minority. Those tensions have an effect on the use of knives and guns and on crime statistics generally. If we are to tackle violence of all kinds in our society we must have a social programme to deal with inequality, scarcity and poverty.
  Personally, I also oppose the growing use of weapons of violence by the forces of the state. Perhaps a more restrictive attitude to the use of weapons in society generally will mean less use of firearms by the police and other forces of the state. The House should not forget the deaths of John Shorthouse and Gail Kitchen, two innocent children killed by police using firearms in the course of their duty. We therefore have a duty to deal with firearms in relation not just to the public but to the state.
  5.51 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) spoke movingly of the tragedies in their constituencies this year and we all appreciate the part that they played in helping their constituents.
  I should say at the outset that I resent the phrase "gun lobby" being bandied about in the media as it implies a wild west, couldn't-care-less attitude to weapons and shooting which is far from the truth. Those to whom I shall refer are members of properly constituted and affiliated rifle clubs, pistol clubs and clay pigeon clubs. They are highly responsible people who look after their ranges, whether they be 25 yd indoor ranges or open ranges, and we should give credit to them for the recreation that they provide. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to react to the Hungerford tragedy. The law needs to be simplified, strengthened and amended, but he should not overreact. That is the burden of my remarks today. The traditional shooter for sport and recreation has a right to continue, and we should not make life too difficult in that respect.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I am disappointed at the amount of consultation so far. I am an office-bearer in the National Small-bore Rifle Association. the National Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and the British Shooting Sports Council. I know that the latter, which represents all the sports in negotiations with the Home Office, has been in consultation on administrative changes and important matters of security. Immediately after the Hungerford tragedy, my noble Friend Lord Swansea wrote expressing grave concern and offering his services for immediate consultations, but I am sorry to say that no consultation took place before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his important announcement on 22 September. Had there been such consultation, I believe that some of the difficulties could have been ironed out before that announcement.
  I warmly accept some of the points made by my right hon. Friend in relation to burst fire weapons, increased penalties and security matters, but any proposals must be practical and effective. So far, no one has mentioned the police manpower required to carry out the recommendations. We know how much administrative work the police carry out to implement the existing system of firearms and shotgun certificates. If the system is to be stepped up, I wonder how this will be achieved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be flexible in thought and deed between now and the presentation of a Bill to Parliament. Like other hon. Members, I would rather the Government took a little longer than that they rushed something out by the end of the year.
  Technical changes will also have to be borne in mind as weapons are constantly evolving and we must be able to adapt quickly to changes as they occur, including changes in international competitive shooting rules. The Minister will receive a very supportive response from the shooting world provided that he recognises the legitimate right to use firearms for sport and recreation. I cannot accept the views of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or of the SDP. I therefore have no difficulty in opposing the motion and

  55
  supporting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I welcome the announcement of 22 September, although I believe that one or two points require amendment.
  A critical issue concerns self-loading and pump action firearms. Kalashnikov-type weapons must clearly be kept out of the hands of ordinary people interested in firearms, but the Government must listen to the arguments in relation to ·222, ·243 and ·275 stalking rifles. Many stalkers feel that these are the most effective, especially when limited to a magazine of four or five rounds. For humane reasons alone, if one wounds a beast, one needs to be able to fire a second round quickly and there is nothing wrong with the use of self-action small-bore rifles for sporting purposes.
  With regard to shotguns, I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates the position of those who rightly use self-loading shotguns for clay pigeon shooting. Only two rounds are used and it may ultimately be necessary to ensure that manufacturers produce shotguns able to fire only two rounds. At present, however, the majority have a capacity of four or five rounds, although they may be adapted to fire only two. If the total of perhaps 200,000 such weapons is to be covered for the purpose of firearms certificates, there will be an enormous burden on the police in terms of inspection and administrative detail.
  It is important to appreciate that a firearm certificate now costs £33 whereas 20 years ago it cost 5s. Moreover, variations cost £19. Any change of weapon, which is quite frequent in competition shooting, would mean a fee of £19 plus police inspection. That seems to me to be setting up a bureaucracy of incredible proportions relative to the practical results that we seek to achieve. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about that aspect.
  Some people in the countryside use self-loading shotguns on pests and vermin. That is quite legal and they have perhaps five shots at their disposal. In relation to game and wild fowl, however, the Wildlife and Countryside Act limits them to three shots. All these matters must be taken into account when legislation is drafted between now and the new year, as I hope will be the case. In my view, to try to achieve this before Christmas is asking too much.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will also look very carefully at perhaps the most complicated area concerning security. We have the 1969 firearms rules. Rule No. 11, says that when firearms are "not in actual use", they must be "in a secure place." That is the critical issue. What is a secure place?
  At the moment there is an enormous difference in police interpretation of that point, Some people have been prosecuted and convicted for not having their rifle or ammunition in a secure place when they are locked in the boot of their car. How is one to take a rifle from home to Bisley, for example, or the nearest indoor range, without taking it in one's car? One must be practical about this matter. If one has a long journey, one is entitled to fill up the car with petrol or have a cup of coffee. The police must accept the good will of the shooting population and realise that what seems to be nitpicking does not help to achieve what we want with regard to security.
  Of course, we must have security in the home. It is crucial. The British Shooting Sports Council has been keen to ensure that. However, we must remove the controversial issues for which there has been legislation in the past two
  56
  or three years, which have caused heart burning in the shooting world and perhaps have not helped towards security.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I share many of my hon. Friend's feelings, although, as he will appreciate, I find myself on both sides of the divide. Does he believe that shooters would accept that the corollary of the requirement for safer keeping is that the police would need to have access to the premises of individual citizens and gun clubs, to ensure that the safe-keeping rule was being respected?
  Sir Hector Monro: Indeed. I welcome the police coming to look at my safe keeping — I shall not say what it is —whenever I renew my firearms certificate. I do not see why that should not be extended to shotgun certificates. However, doing so would mean an enormously increased administrative burden on the police. It is all very well dealing with a few hundred thousand firearms certificates, but if there are to be over 1 million shotgun certificates. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Wales will realise what we are asking the police to do. If there is to be greater security in the home, inspection becomes almost inevitable.
  I hope that we shall look carefully at specialist disciplines in the world of shooting such as muzzle loaders and flintlocks. Obviously, no criminal will set out with a muzzle loader or flintlock for use in crime. Therefore, the regulations must get round that specialist shooting interest.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will mention compensation for those who will have to surrender weapons which at present are legal and which they bought when they were legal. I hope that when the amnesty, which one supports, is held my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that, rightly or wrongly, there are several good historic weapons in people's possession, which I know they should not have. There should be some way in which those weapons could be disposed of through the gun trade so that we do not lose them any more than other works of art and so that they are not just broken up. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for selling them through the gun trade. Thereafter they would be registered. It has been said that it would not matter if they came into circulation. They would not necessarily come into circulation, but at least they would be registered and the police would know where they were.
  I support the view that there should be a photograph on a firearms certificate. When a certificate is presented for the purchase of ammunition or a rifle, the dealer does not know whether the person who presents the certificate is the person to whom it refers.
  We want careful control of firearms. I hope that in the legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promotes he will do all that he can to ensure that sport and recreational shooting continue with as little hindrance as possible. As a nation, we have a tremendous record for marksmanship in the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and international competition and it would be a pity if through thoughtless and over-hasty legislation that pleasure and recreation were removed from the sportsmen and the thousands who go to the countryside to enjoy shooting. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think carefully and consult in great detail the BSSC and other interested bodies before he introduces legislation.
  6.4 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: As someone who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for many years and who was his political opponent for a few of those years, I should like to associate myself with his remarks about the tragedy at Hungerford and the way in which the local people rallied to support the victims of that crime.
  I should also like to associate myself with some of the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman, strange as it may seem. because I, too, draw a parallel between owning a car and owning a gun. We recognise that a car can be a lethal weapon. There are many reasons why it should be registered and its ownership known. Despite what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said about the cost of such a scheme, I believe that people who want legitimately to use firearms of any sort should be prepared to have that done in the same way. That means that every gun should be registered by a separate licence. It is worth reflecting that if Michael Ryan had had to make a subsequent application for every firearm that he came to own, the examination of his mental health might have prevented the additional licensing of any additional weapon after he first acquired one.
  No ammunition should be permitted to be made available or sold to anyone who cannot produce such a licence and give a legitimate reason why ammunition is needed for that weapon system. Therefore, I am pleased at the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put forward our plans and requests to the Home Secretary to amend the proposed legislation in the ways that he suggested.
  My constituents of Lewisham, Deptford, an inner-city area, are concerned that there should be a restriction on all dangerous weapons, not just those classed as firearms, because in my constituency, as in many others, injuries and death resulting from the use of knives are even more substantial than from the use of firearms. I am told that in Lewisham borough a man who was not considered fit to have a licence to sell shotguns or firearms of any sort was subsequently allowed to open a shop selling imitation guns and all forms of martial arts weapons. As we have heard today, many of those weapons are lethal; they can be used to kill people. They should be restricted in the way in which we seek to restrict firearms.
  I do not want to go over much of the ground that has been covered in the debate, but I want to mention the related area of concern that cannot be ignored—the cult of violence that has become part of our society. I understand that available alongside those martial arts weapons there are, for example, audio cassettes entitled "Hitler Youth Sings Again". I fail to understand how such material can legitimately be on sale. I wonder whether the House is aware that a recent copy of Gun and Accessories Mart magazine carried on its front page a picture of an AK47 rifle and described it as "The infamous AK47". That appeared after the tragedy of Hungerford. Advertisements in other magazines refer to a knife known as "The Terminator" and another knife of "awesome strength and penetration".
  Today the House has noted many things about the availability of weapons, but I believe that one cannot escape from that cult of violence. Another magazine, Combat and Survival, recently carried an article entitled:
  "Infantry tactics in built-up areas".
  58
  Another headline was "Fighting with the GPMG", which I understand is an automatic firearm. All those who would argue for the rights of sports people must address themselves to the issue of the cult of violence and advertising in magazines of that nature.
  It has been noted in today's debate that weapons themselves do not cause loss of life or injury; it is the people who use them. It has also been remarked that restricting legislation already exists in this country as compared with other nations, yet there is a rapid rise in crime associated with firearms. While I welcome the proposals for the extension of restrictions in the law, I believe, too, that the House must accept that the problems of the misuse of weapons in this country are due, not only to isolated examples of mental sickness in individuals, but the expression of a deeper ill in our society that emanates from the alienation of so many of our citizens as a result of the divisive social and economic policies of the Government.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will forgive me if I do not pursue her final comments. I want to offer my support to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with which I completely agree. I also congratulate him on the action that he has taken since the tragedy of Hungerford to re-examine the issue of the ownership and control of firearms and shotguns in the United Kingdom. I particularly agree with my right hon. Friend's suggestion that a careful and detailed consideration of these matters should be undertaken.
  The shooting community in the United Kingdom is composed largely, if not wholly, of responsible citizens who pride themselves on their good citizenship, their interest in guns and their safe use of guns. As a group they are as much the victims of the tragedy of Hungerford as the unfortunate people of that community. We should bear in mind the need to balance the debate about the use and control of firearms and shotguns.
  During the debate we have heard calls for different types of certificates, for the inclusion of weapons by number or description on certificates, and for the storage of firearms and shotguns in safe places. However, what will such calls mean? If we are to encourage people to store firearms or shotguns in gun clubs or armouries, what will be the requirements for the security of those premises? An hon. Member referred to what I believe he called a hut to which people went to fire a weapon in target practice. The premises in question might well be suitable for that sort of activity, but if they are to be used for the storage of weapons and ammunition the purpose of those premises will have changed completely, and we need to examine carefully what obligations or requirements we should impose upon those who set themselves up in business, or in association, or in clubs, and may accept responsibility for the storage of firearms, shotguns or ammunition.
  There have been calls for a limit on the amount of ammunition that people may hold, but on some estates — this does not apply in my constituency in the centre of London — I am told that those who go shooting might discharge several thousand rounds in the course of a week's shooting. Under those circumstances, what are the implications for the holding and storage of that amount of ammunition? My right hon. Friend is right to

  59
  say that a careful analysis of these problems is necessary, because, although we are concerned about the aftermath of the Hungerford tragedy, it would be unwise to create a structure of bureaucracy that was so unwieldy that neither the police nor other authorities could make it work, or to create a Mecca for those who wish to steal firearms or ammunition by having them deposited in clubs in which there is inadequate protection.
  Since 1920 we have had strict controls over firearms and shotguns in this country. Those restrictions have served the people of the country extremely well. For 67 years we have not had the like of the Hungerford incident, for which we are all most grateful. That is to be compared with the United States, where, in the 20 years following the murder of President Kennedy, about 210,000 Americans have been killed by firearms. Almost the same number have committed suicide with a gun. Another 50,000 have been killed accidentally by gunfire, and about 180 million privately owned guns are held by people in the United States. Our system of gun control has, for 67 years, prevented that from happening.
  Now, we should be trying to prohibit the possession of firearms such as burst or pump action shotguns, which have no place on the sporting field—such as the semiautomatic rifle of the kind that was tragically used at Hungerford. There can be no justification for the private possession of such weapons. At the same time, we should not prohibit the legitimate use by responsible citizens of weapons used for sporting and firearm practice. Whatever arrangements the House finally decides upon, sadly, it cannot and will not, either by prohibition or certification, prevent people from going mad and using firearms, whether the arms in question were lawfully or unlawfully acquired.
  We cannot prevent the occasional incident of armed crime. Most professionally organised criminals find no difficulty in obtaining unlawful weapons in the so-called black market, imported from the Republic of Ireland or from other parts of Europe. Such people will continue to have access to such weapons, and we should not deceive ourselves into believing that a more punishing regime for the shooting community will somehow prevent another crime, or the tragedy of Hungerford, because it will not.
  That is not to say that my right hon. Friend is wrong to pursue his investigation into the controls that he has announced. He is absolutely right to do so. That forms part of a 67-year tradition of gun control that has served this country and its people well, and that is why I have no hesitation in supporting his amendment tonight.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: There was something in what the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said, but I have no problem in supporting the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Perhaps the hon. Member for Westminster, North and I should have a discussion later in the Lobby. However, I was broadly sympathetic to his remarks, with the exception of his comment — it has been made by other speakers, too — that there can be no justification for the individual possession of semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns. That is not true. There is a justification, and it is a good one. The use of semi-automatic weapons and
  60
  pump action shotguns is common in bona fide, legitimate sports—not only on the shooting field but in the sort of shooting activity that is organised by private shooting clubs on private, licensed ranges throughout the country.
  Hitherto, there have been no problems, and the activities in which shooters have involved themselves have been properly controlled. They are properly licensed and supervised by the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office, and, by and large, there have been no problems. When it is said that there can be no justification for the use of such weapons, a challenge is being made to the Home Office, because it has accepted that indviduals have a right to own, use and enjoy weapons such as these. There is a justification for them in sporting terms, and that has been recognised by the Home Office.
  There is a problem of two dimensions in the proposals that the Home Secretary will put before Parliament later this year. The first is that all the restrictions that are being mooted will be restrictions on the legal shooting lobby. As I understand it, fewer than 1 per cent. of the weapons that are used in crime or in the furtherance of crime are illegally held. It is not suggested that the 99 per cent. of weapons that are legally owned and used will be subject to prohibition, further restrictions and banning because of the misuse of the I per cent. of weapons that are illegally held by the criminal fraternity. The issue has not been properly grasped.
  Secondly, in an intervention I asked the Home Secretary about the events in Hungerford. I understand that he is in something of a dilemma because he has to be seen to be responding to what happened there. Clearly, we all expect the Home Secretary to respond effectively. He has to balance the legitimate rights of the shooting fraternity. I am not a member of that fraternity. I no longer shoot, although I used to. The Home Secretary now faces a barrage of lobbying, not only from those who wish to own firearms but from those who wish to own shotguns. Underpinning that whole lobbying system is the lobby organised by people who engage in field sports.
  The dilemma that the Home Secretary must resolve is how to reconcile the need that he sees to impose restrictions upon certain weapons while at the same time not infringing on the rights that he as the Home Secretary wishes to maintain for the shooting sports lobby. That is the problem. I asked him how he felt the abolition of semiautomatic weapons would have prevented what happened at Hungerford. He said that of course there could never be any absolute guarantee. I am not asking for a guarantee because we can never have guarantees. The abolition of semi-automatic weapons would not have prevented the events at Hungerford.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was not aware when he made his speech that he gave the game away. He spoke about three classes of weapons that are commonly used for field sports, blood sports and stalking. Any one of those weapons could have been used by Michael Ryan to inflict carnage on the town of Hungerford. He did not need a Kalashnikov. The fire power and bullet velocity qualities of the Kalashnikov were of no consequence to the issues at Hungerford. The issue there was about a man who had clearly lost all sense of what he was doing and who had possession of a weapon capable of firing about 30 rounds in about one and a half hours. The hon. Member for Dumfries knows that any of the sporting weapons that he mentioned could have done exactly the same damage as Michael Ryan did with the

  61
  Kalashnikov. Therein lies my reservation about what is proposed. While the banning of the Kalashnikov might let the people of Britain sleep easy in their beds, it would do nothing to prevent the recurrence of events like those in Hungerford.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) knows the depth of feeling in the House and outside for his beleaguered community. The hon. Gentleman made four suggestions about how he felt the Government should respond. I listened carefully to his speech because about three or four weeks ago, probably in common with a number of hon. Members, I was approached by the members of a local gun club who expressed their concern. I spent several hours with them at their site at Llanbradach in my constituency. It was interesting to apply the hon. Gentleman's proposals to the situation in my constituency. First, he said that high-powered, high-velocity weapons should he locked in an armoury. The site in my constituency is licensed by the Home Office and is used frequently by the Ministry of Defence, by the SAS who come down from Hereford. The site is on top of a mountain and is in the semi-circle of a coal tip. Access is after a journey of about three and a half miles across open countryside. The armoury, if that is what it is called, is a small stone building used for storing targets. There is no security, and there cannot be.
  The hon. Gentleman may say that it is necessary for that club to build a proper armoury. It may well be that in Newbury and in Westminster and in the more affluent parts of Britain gun clubs have the resources to spend £15,000 to £30,000 to build a secure armoury. The scores of people who belong to the shooting club in my constituency are miners, farm workers and unemployed people. By and large, the membership of that club represents the population of my constituency. They would not be able to build an armoury and if they were restricted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests my constituents, who are currently quite legitimately allowed to use weapons, would be deprived of their enjoyment of those weapons. That deprivation would result from their inability to pay. If we are to impose any restrictions, they should be on the basis not of a person's ability to pay but on some other system of merit, justice or security.
  The hon. Member for Newbury also suggested that there should be restrictions on the volume of ammunition. I think that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said that hundreds of rounds of ammunition would be used. Shooters usually compete on Sunday afternoons. That practice may not be followed elsewhere, but certainly in my part of the world shooting on a range on a Sunday afternoon is an accepted part of the sporting calendar. It is as well to remember that the events that we are describing are recognised by the Olympic Federation as Olympic sports. On a Sunday afternoon people who wish to shoot on the range in my constituency have to drive to the range and carry their ammunition. How else can they equip themselves for a shoot of four to six hours unless they come equipped with a box of ammunition or a dozen magazines? Are they to go down every half hour to the local gun shop in Cardiff, which is not open on a Sunday anyway? How are they to cope with such a restriction? The hon. Gentleman's third point about a ban on holding a number of guns is superficially attractive. Michael Ryan did his damage with one gun.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Michael Ryan was carrying three guns—a Kalashnikov, an M1 carbine and a Beretta. He used the Kalashnikov and the Beretta.
  Mr. Davies: I understand that the Beretta was the last weapon that he used and that the damage was inflicted with the Kalashnikov. That is precisely the point I made, that he needed only one rifle. Preventing a licensed person from having half a dozen weapons makes no progress in the sort of control that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If a person is deemed to be fit, in the eyes of the law, to possess a high-powered rifle, how can he be deemed unfit in the eyes of the law to possess a second high-powered rifle? That question must be answered by the hon. Member for Newbury.
  In itself the banning of semi-automatic weapons would in no way prevent a recurrence of the sort of events that happened in Hungerford. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would have looked at greater length at the events at Hungerford and that he would have instituted a public inquiry to examine not only the events, the possession of weapons and the police response, but the very confused and dangerous area of the possession of weapons
  6.28 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: This debate is important. This topic was chosen as the first subject to be debated in Opposition time after the recess because of the widespread concern of Opposition Members and, as we have heard. of some Conservative Members. Certainly there is concern throughout the country, not only about the incidents this summer, but about the increasing use and misuse of firearms in Britain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we had hoped that there would be general agreement throughout the House on the constructive proposals in our motion. We are disappointed that the Home Secretary's amendment and his speech this afternoon indicate that as yet he is willing to permit himself to make only minimal changes. We are disappointed and alarmed that he does not seem to grasp the urgency of the need for a complete and thorough review of the whole basis of gun control.
  Conservative Members have urged the Home Secretary to delay and water down his limited proposals. I urge him not to backtrack, but to go further, and in particular to push ahead as quickly as possible, not only with legislation, but with the amnesty that he has proposed. He said this afternoon that that would take time to organise and publicise. We accept that, but he should not be complacent and simply say that it will happen some time next year. He needs to firm up on all those proposals if we are to make progress on this important matter.
  My hon. Friends have acknowledged that many people who own and use firearms are not a threat to themselves. their friends, their families, their neighbours or to society as a whole. We accept that there are some people for whom the use and ownership of a firearm is probably an essential part of their working lives. We think of farmers in particular. We are not attempting to insinuate that all those who hold and use firearms are likely to misuse them: nor are we suggesting that they would knowingly allow them to fall into the hands of others who could misuse them. We are not attacking every member or every gun club as being irresponsible.
  What we say, however, is that the increase in violent crime, the number of accidents and the misuse of firearms

  63
  generally has caused concern for several years. The incidents this summer have highlighted that concern and brought the fears of many to the forefront. However, there is no way in which that concern can be seen, as some Conservative hon. Members would suggest, as an alarmist reaction to the events of Hungerford and elsewhere this summer. The calls for stricter controls from Opposition hon. Members go back a long way.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook outlined earlier today the attempts by my hon. Friends on many occasions to raise with the Home Secretary the need for stronger controls. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) all had meetings and correspondence with the Home Secretary to press for tougher action long before those recent incidents. They warned that such outbreaks and incidents could occur if controls were not improved, but all that is in the past.
  What we must recognise is that the need is clear and the climate right for significant changes in the law on gun control. The Home Secretary said that we must think of legislating for 20 years ahead, and he gave that as a reason for delay. I believe that that is a reason to be as comprehensive as possible in the measures and changes that we decide should take place. The House now has to decide what the changes will be. Virtually every hon. Member agrees that changes in gun control must take place. The question is the extent of those changes — whether the changes will simply be to deal with some of the loopholes that evidently exist, some of which have been acknowledged by the Home Secretary, whether dealing with those loopholes will be the limit of the changes proposed, or whether we will review the whole basis of gun control.
  The Home Secretary said today that he is willing to take what he called significant action. He has accepted the need for strengthening controls, but he has not made it clear where he stands on the points in our motion. He did not say where he stood on the individual licences for shotguns and all the other points. When the Minister winds up the debate this evening, I hope that he will be specific about the points raised in the Opposition's motion. Surely he must agree that it cannot be right for an individual to hold any number of shotguns on the basis of one licence. The police cannot be expected to supervise effectively the possession of shotguns if they do not have a record of the number of shotguns that an individual owns. At present the police do not even know the number of shotguns in circulation. That is why we believe that a separate certificate should be required for each shotgun. The Home Secretary needs to make his position clear on this, and I urge the Minister to be specific about that this evening.
  Also mentioned in our motion is the creation of a central register of all approved firearms and shotguns, as this would greatly assist the police in tracing the origins of firearms used illegally. The United States and many other countries have set up central registers of guns. While this cannot wholly prevent the illegal use of weapons, it can act as a deterrent, it is an incentive to hold weapons securely and, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) said, it will ensure the proper recording of the theft of weapons from a legitimate owner,
  64
  The Home Secretary agrees with our third point. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to extend the ban on automatic weapons to semi-automatic weapons. We agree with him that there can be no justification for an individual holding such weapons, but this is the only point mentioned in our motion on which the Home Secretary has commented. I repeat that we do want to know where the Government stand on the issues raised today.
  We would also like the Home Secretary's comment on our fourth proposal, which is the ability of an individual to purchase weapons by mail order. It cannot be right that a person can buy a pump action shotgun, or any weapon, through the mail. It represents an unacceptably casual approach to the purchase of potentially deadly weapons and we believe that it should he stopped.
  The measures that we have proposed in the motion are by no means the limits that we would like to see on new controls. The points in our motion are simple and practical proposals which are supported by the Police Federation and which we hope to use as the basis for common ground in today's debate. I believe that we will need to go further in new legislation and say that before a licence is issued or anyone is allowed to hold a gun in his home we should shift the onus of proof as to why someone needs a gun. Further, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, we should look at the rules governing the establishment and running of gun clubs, and look thoroughly at the rules and legislation on ammunition. Incredible though it seems, presently anyone over the age of 18 can legally store 30 lb of gunpowder for his private use. Surely such a provision is asking for troulble.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: For Guy Fawkes
  Mrs. Taylor: For Guy Fawkes, indeed. It is significant that, in the incidents that have occurred this summer and have caused such concern, each of the gunmen had access not only to a number of weapons but to vast amounts of ammunition. While the control of ammunition may be difficult, and while I recognise that many gun users make their own ammunition because of the high cost of buying it, we have to ensure that we minimise the easy availabilty of ammunition so as to minimise the risks.
  Much of what we propose is designed to minimise risks. We recognise that it can never be possible to prevent all crimes involving firearms. As many of the letters from the gun lobby point out, it will never be possible to legislate for a mad man. Of course it will not. It is not conceding anything to recognise that, but we can and must legislate to reduce the scope for the deliberate and the accidental misuse of guns. We know that we cannot prevent that entirely, but we must minimise risks.
  Above all, we must decide where our starting point will be. Do we start from the premise that everyone is entitled to own a gun? Do we follow the United States model, or do we start from the premise that society has a right to security and to the freedom to go about its normal daily business with as much security and as little risk as possible, and that only those who can show good need to hold a firearm, as well as their basic stability — although this is a difficult area, since only this summer several murderers were legally in possession of their weapons — should be allowed to hold one?
  The Home Secretary proposes to change the onus of proof in relation to knives—
  Mr. Hurd: The possession of knives in a public place.
  Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that if someone carries a knife in a public place the onus will be on him to prove why he is carrying it. The same should be true of firearms. The Home Secretary may not have heard the comments of some of his hon. Friends, who said that it was reasonable for someone who held firearms to lock them in the boot of his car while he went into a cafe for a drink on his way to a shooting match. I believe that that is an unreasonable place in which to store guns, and I hope that the Home Secretary will agree. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that he might agree with that and that there should be stricter controls on the transportation of lethal weapons.
  The Opposition acknowledge that those changes would mean the loss of some rights among some gun holders, but sporting activities could be reorganised if the will was there. It would cause some inconvenience, although that would be as nothing compared with the loss of rights of all of us if the use and misuse of guns became even more widespread. The extent to which guns and violence generally are part of our society is alarming, and the extent to which they are part of the so-called entertainment industry is incredible.
  Recently there has been much speculation about the extent to which gunmen have modelled themselves on the dubious heroes of films and videos — Rambo and the like. Whatever may have been the case with the gunmen this summer, it is impossible to believe that it is a sign of a healthy society to have a series of Rambo books produced for children of junior school age in which violence and the gun rule. They include titles such as "Operation Suicide" and are published just for children. A gun culture and mentality in our society diminish the freedom of everyone, so we do not apologise for our proposals to introduce the most stringent controls on guns.
  We are at a crossroads. We will either bow to the gun lobby and its reported £100,000 campaign designed to limit controls, or, as the Opposition hope, we will grasp the opportunity comprehensively to rationalise and tighten gun control. Unless we go further than the Home Secretary proposed today, Britain will move nearer to living with violence. The whole House has a responsibility to prevent that.
  6.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, this has been an instructive debate. It enabled my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to present the main elements in his proposals, which will soon be set out in a Bill. As a consequence, hon. Members have had an early opportunity to comment on those proposals and to make their suggestions for changes to law or to practice. In deciding what should be in the Bill, my right hon. Friend will pay close attention to what has been said during the debate.
  Before I deal with the substance of the argument, I shall re-emphasise two points made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nothing that we can do by way of law or practice can be guaranteed to prevent a tragedy from recurring. Moreover, nothing that we can do by way of changes to statutory law will prevent criminals from gaining access to guns. We can hope to reduce the risk of
  66
  tragedy and make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. But we need to be realistic about our attainable objectives. The shooting community, to which I belong, is a large, respected, and well-established part of our national life. Its interests are lawful and proper and must be taken fully into account. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said on this point. We need to strike a fair and proper balance between the need and demand for greater gun control and the legitimate concerns of shooting people who, with only rare exceptions, are as responsible and law-abiding as any in our community. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for saying that we have the balance about right.
  To the extent that time permits, I propose to deal with all the points that have been made by hon. Members either by way of specific questions or suggestions or by way of criticism of our proposals. If I fail to respond to any point, I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Member and I shall respond in writing later.
  I shall deal first with the four main criticisms. The first proposition advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which received support from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), was that every firearm should be subject to a separate certificate. I assume that that proposal applies to shotguns as well as to other firearms such as rifles arid pistols.
  Mr. Hattersley indicated assent.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman confirms my understanding. It is important for him to do so, because we must be clear about the manpower consequences of such a proposal. In Great Britain, there are about 198,580 firearms certificates and nearly 930,000 shotgun certificates. Frequently, firearms certificates cover several weapons, and we believe that there are well over 3 million shotguns in the community. An application for section 1 certification takes about two and a quarter hours to process. Simply to process the original application for each gun to which the proposal relates would impose a massive burden on police forces equivalent to thousands of police officers working a complete year. Before we went down that road, we would have to be certain that the net benefit in terms of law enforcement was substantial. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said on that point.
  The second main point made by the Opposition was that we should subject shotguns to section 1 control. Why not impose a requirement that there should be a good reason to possess a shotgun? First, I want to re-emphasise what we are doing to increase controls on shotguns. We propose to subject semi-automatic weapons to the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Secondly, we propose a statutory place of security condition regulating the keeping of shotguns when not in use. We are also considering a system for keeping records of those shotguns that individuals possess. However, our objective is arid must be to improve gun control and not merely to increase restrictions for the sake of being seen to do something.
  My fear is that if we impose a "good reason" requirement on the possession of shotguns, we shall face massive non-compliance. If that happens, instead of there being a general acceptance of the measures already

  67
  outlined, a very large number of guns will simply disappear. The effect would be to make gun control less effective than if we were to adhere to the measures that I have just outlined.
  Mr. Holt: If this manpower problem is so onerous, why does the job have to be undertaken by the police? We do not use police officers in connection with television or automobile licences until the law is broken. The presumption is, as hon. Members have said, that 99 per cent. of legitimate shooters who apply for licences are decent people. There is no need to bring the police into this matter at all. There are enough retired senior officers from the services unemployed in my constituency to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Hogg: One of the problems is that a number of Labour-controlled councils will simply not employ members from the public services in receipt of a pension. I hope very much that the Opposition will denounce that policy.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I will not give way now.
  Although it is perfectly true that we could use civilians for a number of the functions involved in gun control, I do not believe that the main thrust of that policy could be delegated to non-police officers.
  Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way now?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I want to proceed if the right hon. Gentleman will permit me. He will have to allow me to get on.
  The next point made by Opposition Members — largely, although not exclusively, by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook — was a call for a complete ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. To the extent that that proposal is not already covered by existing legislation or by the Home Secretary's proposals, I suggest that that point goes too far. All fully automatic weapons are available only on section 5 certificates and that is never made available to individuals.
  The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary involve extending section 5 control to burst fire guns and full-bore self-loading rifles. We shall consider including in a Bill a residual power to enable the Secretary of State to lift into section 5 control any specially dangerous fast-firing gun. Such a power would be subject to the ordinary control of Parliament.
  The proposals made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook go too far. First, they would prohibit the possession of all self-loading pistols. That would destroy the ability of most pistol shooters to participate in traditional and well-established competitions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, self-loading pistols are a very popular form of hand gun much used in traditional pistol shooting competitions. We believe that section 1 control is adequate to cover that. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would prohibit the possession of a ·22 calibre Rimfire rifle much in use for vermin control. Again we believe that section 1 control is adequate for that. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would mean a total ban on semi-automatic
  68
  shotguns of which there are probably about 200,000 in the country. We believe section 1 control is adequate for those guns.
  The next general proposition raised concerns mail order.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister share my concern that the limited and commendable proposals that he has made could be effectively undermined by the current EEC directive called "Mutual Recognition of Firearms Certificates" which can now be imposed in Britain against our will under the Single European Act, as the directive provides that by 1992 Community nationals could wander around Britain with Kalashnikovs so long as they have a valid licence issued in Sicily, Lisbon or Dublin? Will the Government do everything in their power to ensure that that directive is rejected by the majority of the EEC?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, Sir. The directive to which my hon. Friend refers sounds thoroughly undesirable to me. The Government's position is that we would regard any directive or draft directive as wholly unacceptable if it fetters our ability to impose the kind of gun control that the House considers appropriate.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No, I am sorry. Much as I dislike disobliging my hon. Friend, I intend to continue.
  The next major proposition related to mail order. A number of the proposals that I have already outlined have an impact on mail order firms. However, we are concerned about the law which relates to the dispatch and carriage of guns and we are looking into that. I must say that I was surprised and pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—not a natural ally of mine— supported my reservations on the amendment so far as it relates to mail order.
  I wanted to consider some of the specific points that have been made during the debate. Compensation was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), Kingswood and Dumfries. We have not come to a conclusion on that matter. However, there are real problems of principle and practice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury made a distinguished contribution. In the course of his remarks he made five points of substance. First, he referred to clubs. I agree with his comments on that. There is no reason to suppose that the law is not effective, but we propose to examine the law to see whether further checks are necessary. Secondly, he made a very important point about amnesty. He said that when weapons are handed to the police as part of an amnesty, they should not be available to return to a pool of illegally held weapons. I agree with that important point. Thirdly, he said that there should be photographs on certificates. We will look at that valuable suggestion. Fourthly, he referred to specialist firearm squads within forces. That practice is already being adopted. Finally, he made an important point about the recording of guns and was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), the latter in an intervention. We are giving urgent consideration to a method of recording the number and identity of shotguns. However, we must take into ccount the resource implications.

  69
  The hon. Member for Greenwich suggested that all guns should be kept at a club. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood disagreed and so do I. It would not be a sensible rule to apply universally because in some cases it would be inappropriate for a particular gun owner or gun and in any event it would make the arsenal a target.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood referred to the importance of safeguarding guns when they are in transit from the place of security to the point of use. That is a very important point that we must address. However, I take account of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who was anxious that we should not impose impossible conditions during the period of transfer. We will do our best not to do that.
  I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that, in future, magazines in semiautomatic guns should be restricted to two cartridges. I am sorry that he considers that there has been a lack of consultation. In fact, we have been consulting fairly widely, and we propose to continue to do so. I take on board his point about the collection of antiques.
  I fancy that it would be for the benefit of the House to proceed to the next business. Therefore, I conclude by apologising to those hon. Members to whom I have not responded in detail. I shall be writing to them.
  Later this Session — we hope before Christmas — we intend to introduce legislation which will improve firearms control. In framing that legislation, we shall pay careful attention to what has been said in the debate. We must strike a fair and proper balance between the need and demand for greater gun control and the proper and legitimate interests of the shooting community.
  I believe that our proposals will substantially improve firearms control but will not impose unreasonable or unjustifiable burdens upon those who shoot. It is in that spirit that I invite the House to accept the amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 314.

  Division No. 33]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Alton, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Amos, Alan

  Buckley, George

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ashton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cartwright, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clay, Bob

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, A. J.

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Coleman, Donald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blair, Tony

  Crowther, Stan

  Blunkett, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Boateng, Paul

  Cummings, J.

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Darling, Alastair

  70

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dixon, Don

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Martlew, Eric

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maxton, John

  Dunnachie, James

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Meale, Alan

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michael, Alun

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morley, Elliott

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Fisher, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Flannery, Martin

  Murphy, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  O'Brien, William

  Foster, Derek

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foulkes, George

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fraser, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Pendry, Tom

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Pike, Peter

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Prescott, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Randall, Stuart

  Gould, Bryan

  Redmond, Martin

  Graham, Thomas

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Reid, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rogers, Allan

  Hardy, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Henderson, Douglas

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Holland, Stuart

  Short, Clare

  Home Robertson, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hood, James

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Snape, Peter

  Hoyle, Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Straw, Jack

  Illsley, Eric

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Janner, Greville

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  John, Brynmor

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Turner, Dennis

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Wall, Pat

  Lamond, James

  Wallace, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Lewis, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Litherland, Robert

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McAllion, John

  Winnick, David

  McAvoy, Tom

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Macdonald, Calum

  Worthington, Anthony

  McFall, John

  Wray, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McLeish, Henry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McTaggart, Bob

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.

  Madden, Max

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  71

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Favell, Tony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Allason, Rupert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amess, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkinson, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fry, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gill, Christopher

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Benyon, W.

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brazier, Julian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bright, Graham

  Hannam, John

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

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

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

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Harris, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Chris

  Heddle, John

  Butterfill, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howard, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Curry, David

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Irvine, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Irving, Charles

  Devlin, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Janman, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Durant, Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Eggar, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knowles, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Knox, David

  72

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ryder, Richard

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Hal

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mills, Iain

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trippier, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walters, Dennis

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wheeler, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wilshire, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Renton, Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Woodcock, Mike

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion

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

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the time has come for strengthened system of firearms controls; welcomes the announcement by the Home Secretary on 22 September of the main conclusions of the study of ways in which firearms legislation might be improved; supports the need for further urgent but careful and detailed consideration of other possible measures under review; and endorses the Government's intention to announce shortly the outcome of this examination and to introduce new firearms legislation during this session of Parliament.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)
  Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In exchanges on a point of order earlier a request was made for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House about the financial markets and their economic implications for the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer chose not to make such a statement, but in exchanges thereafter the Opposition made an offer to change the next debate to cover that subject and to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take part — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That offer by the Opposition would have permitted the Chancellor to make a statement now and to tell the House what he should have told it earlier without having been forced to come here, but it has not been accepted.
  I ask the Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether they intend to make a statement today. If there is no such intention, may we insist that a statement he made tomorrow at the latest? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already spoken to the stock exchange, but he is accountable to the House of Commons, not the stock exchange.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is open to the Shadow Cabinet to choose the subject for debate today. Following the earlier exchanges, there were discussions through the usual channels. I think that it would be wrong, and not in the interests of the House as a whole, to seek to change the business at such short notice.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a long-standing engagement in the City which I am certain he is right to fulfil. I cannot for one moment accept the Opposition's strictures.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rumours are floating around the Palace of Westminster that every pressure is being applied to stop a statement being made and to prevent the Chancellor being questioned. It is extremely unfortunate that once again the House is being treated with contempt. The Chancellor is to make a statement later tonight on the subject on which we wish to question him, but he refuses to come to the House. In view of the importance of this subject to our constituents—[Interruption]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Winnick: The matter is of importance to our constituents in terms of their jobs, which the Opposition regard as crucial, even if the Government do not. Will you, Mr. Speaker, ensure that the Chancellor makes a statement at 10 o'clock tonight?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I repeat what the House already knows. I am not in a position to insist that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Opposition are indulging in no more than synthetic outrage. If the Opposition are so concerned about the stock market, which sustained its biggest falls last week, why did the Leader of the Opposition not question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the

  75
  House earlier? The Opposition show synthetic concern because they made a mistake in choosing the topic of debate for today.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the changes that has taken place today in the fall of the stock exchange and the changes throughout the world is that it is reported that the underwriters have asked for the BP flotation later this week to be—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Rees: The underwriters and others have asked the Government not to proceed with this major part of their policy which was a major factor in the general election. this House ought to be told what the Government's response will be. Everyone else has been talking about it, but the Chancellor is not doing his duty by this House on this issue, and the Leader of the House ought to do something about it.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm the rumour that when the Shadow Cabinet met they failed to agree on today's debate because they could not reach a united view on anything to do with the stock exchange?
  Mr. Speaker: I never confirm rumours.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just been asked whether you could persuade the Government to make a statement, which is obviously very urgent. You replied that you were not in a position to force them to make a statement. However, will you confirm that you have control over private notice questions? I understand the convention of the House that you never allow a discussion about whether private notice questions have been submitted or whether the application was turned down. But will you confirm that it is possible for a private notice question application to be made at any time and not merely at Question Time? In that case, it would be possible for an application to be made that would enable you to decide that the Chancellor should come to the House at this stage and answer questions that hon. Members wish to ask rather than going off to the stock exchange. I hope that you will confirm that we can put these questions at this time.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) knows that I have no authority to extend Question Time to later in the evening. There are precedents for statements to be made later in the day, but never private notice questions.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that in the present situation it might be unwise, and probably pointless, for the Chancellor to make a statement until he has had time to reach agreement with his opposite numbers in the G7 countries? We would be most unwise to press him to make a partial statement at this time.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are one of the important people who safeguard the rights of Back
  76
  Benchers, and the Opposition in particular, in a system of democracy that holds the Executive accountable here in this House. It is clearly a calculated act of political cowardice for the Government to refuse to come here to make a statement. It is therefore incumbent upon us and, I suggest, you to ensure that there is full accountability from a group of people in government who are not giving the information—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Arrogant bastards.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear a very unparliamentary expression?
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Cryer: In fact, it is an erosion of our democratic principles when the Government fail to come to the House when every other source of public communication in the country and abroad is discussing these very issues. Parliament is being denied the information, and that is an outrage to our parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before tempers rise too much, will the hon. Member who made that unparliamentary expression now withdraw it?
  Mr. Sedgemore: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition's sudden concern for the stock market and their apparent forgetfulness of the importance of the national curriculum may strike you as odd, as it does me. On a more substantive point, has not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) given the game away with his usual felicity of expression when he said that my right hon. Friend had lost a few bob last week? In other words, there is no urgency about this matter. Had there been, could not the Opposition have applied to your office before 12 o'clock today to do something about it?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday several attempts were made with regard to another important issue to get the Attorney-General to the Dispatch Box to answer charges that had been made the day before. As a result, and it was almost unprecedented, the Attorney-General had to come here at 2.30 pm to answer questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the ANC plot. It was important that those questions were put. I am not so sure that we got very satisfactory answers, but that is another argument.
  On this occasion the Chancellor has ignored all the pleas to come to the House to answer questions about the serious crisis in the stock exchange and the casino economy generally. You, Mr. Speaker, know that these matters were raised earlier last week. At the time when I did so the Chancellor was on television preaching to Reagan and telling him to get his house in order, yet he is not prepared to come to the House and to deal with the matter here. It would not be a bad idea if pressures were put upon the right hon. Gentleman, because he is treating Mr. Speaker with contempt as well. He is going off to the stock exchange with a £40 dinner in front of him no doubt, yet the House of Commons is not allowed to question him when there will be unemployment and cuts in social services as a result of all this. Those are the matters about which Labour Members are concerned, and the Chancellor ought to be made to do his duty to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with the Chair. This is an Opposition Supply day and an important debate is to follow in which a large number of hon. Members wish to take part. There will be opportunities to discuss this matter later this week. There will be Trade and Industry questions on Wednesday and the Chancellor himself will be present for Treasury questions on Thursday. There will be opportunities then to question him, but I can do nothing about it now.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that as late as last Thursday the Opposition had the opportunity to determine the subjects for today's debates, yet not until today have they suddenly taken it into their head, and to their great surprise, that there are problems on the world exchange markets. Will you confirm that it is thoroughly mischievous for the Opposition to raise this today when they know perfectly well that it is simply an attempt to switch the business in order to embarrass the Government and Ministers? Given that it has taken until today for the Opposition to notice that there is a problem on the stock exchange, is not this an example of their trying to disrupt the business quite gratuitously?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I confirmed the hon. Gentleman's initial point earlier this afternoon.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member who is very naive in the Chamber, I find it difficult to understand why, when one third is wiped off share values, the Chancellor should go to the City of London rather than coming to the House to make a statement. Can you offer me some guidance on how serious an economic crisis has to be before the right hon. Gentleman comes to speak to the House?
  Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow): It is far more responsible for the Chancellor to try to calm the nerves of the City than to try to calm those of Opposition Members, whose every utterance is damaging the economy.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members — perhaps even a majority — are now in favour of televising the proceedings of the House. The purpose of that would be, presumably, to show the world outside how immediately relevant our proceedings are to what people are discussing outside. May we assume, in pressing for a statement in a bipartisan attempt to solve the problem, that all hon. Members — including the many Conservative Members who are so anxious that our proceedings should appear to be relevant — are equally anxious to hear a statement on this matter that everyone is discussing?
  Mr. Rob Hayward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition maintain that there is a crisis now, and are asking for a statement. I understand that the stock exchange closed 111 points down. At 12 o'clock, the closing point at which Opposition Members could have put down a private notice question, it was substantially further down. It was their choice—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, hon. Members should not refer to any application that may or may not have been made.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will not the Leader of the House help you, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House by saying that he is prepared to see the Chancellor between now and 10 pm to make arrangements for a statement to be made then, so that we may proceed with the business? Would it not be seriously misleading both the House and the country for anyone to be given the impression that — necessary though it is to secure accountability — the making of a statement by the Chancellor, either here or in the City, will do anything to ease the position on the markets?
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There must be something wrong when we hear the Opposition championing capitalism. For Opposition Members to talk about trying to defend capitalism is hypocrisy of the highest order. What the House needs is for those of us who really care about the world outside the stock market to get on with our work and leave the country alone. The Socialists help no one else; they only try to help themselves.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that at half past three this afternoon I raised the precedent of Mr. Speaker King granting a private notice question application against the wishes of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Callaghan—as he now is—on what was, at the time, a rumour of a loan. There is also the precedent, in 1976, of Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd granting private notice questions on delicate financial matters. Has there been a change of policy by the Chair on granting private notice questions on what are, admittedly, delicate financial matters when the markets could be affected?
  Mr. Speaker: Of course, every application is considered carefully on its merits. I have now had an opportunity to look up the precedent. It was at a time when the Government were seeking a loan. and I do not consider that the situations are comparable.
  Mr. James Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that I attended most of the seminar at which the Chancellor was speaking today. It was not for members of the stock exchange, but for a large group of leading industrialists whose companies are quoted on the stock market. It was a long-standing engagement. whose cancellation would have caused considerable dismay in the City and among manufacturers and industrialists throughout the country. Surely there was much more purpose in my right hon. Friend's speaking to those industrialists than in his responding to the braying and baying of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer insulting the House by refusing to come here and make a statement on what is clearly a matter of grave significance for the economy? Not only does the right hon. Gentleman physically resemble Nero, but he is clearly adopting the same attitude. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that you have the power to order the fat hounder to be dragged here from the dinner table?
  Mr. Speaker: First, I have not that power. Secondly, I dislike that expression, which I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.
  Mr. Banks: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall say "the corpulent gentleman".
  Mr. Speaker: That is almost as bad.
  Mr. Banks: Is it possible, then, for the corpulent and right hon. Gentleman to be brought here in a tumbril? May we, moreover, have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the recently-announced resignation of the Lord Chancellor is in no way connected with this matter? Perhaps he holds shares on which he has lost money.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why Opposition Members seek to invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make a statement about the current effective and efficient running and growth of the British economy? If they are seeking clarification on what to do with their shareholdings and exposed option positions, perhaps they should telephone their stockbrokers.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, despite any opposition that might be placed before you by the Government Chief Whip or any Minister, you have a right under private notice question procedure to grant a debate? In the event that a private notice question was submitted by my hon. Friends tomorrow — I am not saying that it will be — will you confirm that you would be free of pressure to decide in favour of an expression of opinion by my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber this evening?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a hypothetical question at the moment; the hon. Gentleman must wait until tomorrow.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you recall for the benefit of the House whether in January 1975, when the FT index was standing at 146, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) came to make a statement to the House about how he had managed to reduce confidence in the British economy to a point at which the index stood at one tenth of its present level?
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware of the anxiety of the small, rather than the large, investors, who are of as much concern to us as to the Government. Is it not incumbent on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House to try to explain the effects of the Government's policy today on the dramatic fall in the stock exchange, and the effect on those small investors? Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that the Chancellor comes to make that explanation, not tomorrow, but today?
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know through the usual channels, the Opposition have been pressing the Chancellor to come to the House and make a statement since the House reassembled last Wednesday. While my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was referring to the attendance in the Chamber of the Attorney-General on Friday, Conservative Front Benchers said that he had volunteered. Our problem to date is that we depend on the Chancellor's volunteering to make a statement. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have to depend for ever on the Chancellor making a statement, because it lies within your powers to accept a private notice question that would require his attendance in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: I look carefully at every private notice question application and consider it on its merits.

  Education
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on consultation on the Government's education proposals. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As this debate has started somewhat late, I make a special appeal for brief contributions from both the Back and the Front Benches.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the interests of the nation's children require that any major educational changes should be based upon broad public agreement: notes that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has generally allowed six weeks only for the responses to his consultative documents to be submitted and has made clear that he will ignore most of those responses: condemns Her Majesty's Government for making a mockery of the consultative process: and calls for the suspension of all proposals for legislation so that proper public consultation and debate can take place upon proposals which, if implemented, would fail to improve genuinely parental choice, impose unnecessary additional burdens on schools and teachers and seriously damage the education of the nation's children.
  The Conservative party's general election manifesto pledged this Government to widespread change in the nation's education system. However, in some parts of that manifesto the Prime Minister has decided to stand on her head — for example, on the national curriculum. Two years ago, in the White Paper "Better Schools", the Prime Minister emphatically ruled out a national curriculum. We are now told that it is to be the centrepiece of these reforms.
  In other cases, there have been the gimmicks of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The so-called city technology colleges were incorporated in the manifesto. As for the rest of the education system, the pledges originated with the extreme right-wing Hillgate group and an assemblage of little-known Tory BackBenchers, who called themselves the no-turning back group. In its preposterous pamphlet, "Save Our Schools", this band of 13 set down in detail all the schemes in the manifesto for the creation of central state schools — opted-out schools as they are known — and for so-called open admission, and other hair-brained schemes for the balkanisation of the nation's education service. It was on the basis of these assertions — to call them ideas would be to do an injustice to the English language—that the Government now claim a mandate for embarking in haste on the greatest and least considered upheaval of the education system that this country has ever seen.
  Whatever won the election for the Conservative party, it was not its education policy. Labour was further ahead on education by the end of the election campaign than it had been at the beginning. That was thanks, in large part, to the excellent advocacy of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), but it was thanks, too, to the quite separate efforts of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister set the hares going as to whether opted-out schools could charge fees, select their own pupils and pay teachers higher salaries. Each of the Prime Minister's statements had to be disowned by the Secretary of State as soon as he heard about them, having turned on his car telephone about six hours too late.
  82
  In its summer edition of "Crossbow" the Bow Group commented acidly that the education policy
  "has failed the unpredictability test"
  and confirmed that the policy had indeed been "cobbled together" at the last minute. Since the Bow Group numbers among its patrons the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Bow Group is presumably in a position to know.
  A poll in The Sunday Times just after the election showed that many more parents were opposed to the plans for schools to opt out than were in favour. Evidence in the same paper yesterday showed that that trend is accelerating, with the Conservatives losing the argument on education.
  In the course of this debate, the Secretary of State will no doubt plead the doctrine of the mandate in the face of mounting hostility to his plans, but whatever the arguments about the nature of the mandate for his proposals, the Secretary of State has no mandate whatever for the timetable that he and the Prime Minister are now seeking to impose upon a reluctant House and nation. The manifesto was wholly silent on the timetable. So, too, were the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State throughout the election campaign.
  Nor, indeed, was the Secretary of State explicit about the timetable in the debate on the Loyal Address just four months ago. Instead, what we had then from the Secretary of State were honeyed words about consultation:
  "There will be a debate not just in the House but in the country. We want to listen to people in the education system."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 586.]
  The honey turned to treacle when the Secretary of State addressed the Council of Local Education Authorities in July. His words deserve to be repeated. He said:
  "I readily acknowledge … the need to take account of the expertise and experience of local authorities in the delivery of education. We shall listen carefully to the comments of representatives of local government … Let us now work together to consolidate the progress we have made … The Government's policies will not be effective unless they secure the co-operation of the education service and the schools".
  That was the promise. How different, how cynical, has been the practice. Five major consultation documents were published in July — on collective worship and on admissions, on 7 and 9 July respectively, and one on financial delegation on 20 July. Those three consultation documents set ludicrously short deadlines for the receipt of comments—by the second week of September.
  The Secretary of State then showed even more contempt for the House by publishing the two most important documents, on the national curriculum and on opting out, on the very last Friday — 24 July — of the Session, after most hon. Members had left for their constituencies. His deadline was 30 September. The Secretary of State chose this period for listening very well, when most people and most institutions were not available to talk to him. Of the nine weeks that he allowed for response, six were during the school summer holidays when parents, teachers, local education authorities and national bodies had all dispersed.
  The Secretary of State bleats on about parental choice. What kind of choice have parents been offered in this consultation exercise when, to formulate their views on matters which will have a profound effect on their children's lives, the Secretary of State gave them and their schools just three weeks to comment on the national

  83
  curriculum and opting out, and just one week — one week of term—to respond to the document on so-called financial delegation, which may force parents and governors to choose between an adequate supply of books, or the redecoration of classrooms, or an adequate supply of teachers? "By their deeds shall ye know them." For this Secretary of State, for this Prime Minister, parental choice is simply a hollow phrase. Parents and their children are simply pawns in a ruthless exercise to destroy our system of free education, provided by local communities.
  What kind of choice has been given to parents in inner London by the Secretary of State, who has allowed just five weeks for responses to a scheme that will disrupt education across inner London when, even to close one tiny school, local authorities have to consult for eight weeks? In a survey that we conducted in September of a representative sample of 30 local education authorities, 97 per cent. had been unable, in the time, to consult parent-teacher associations, and 90 per cent. had been unable to consult school governors. In only 62 per cent. of cases was there time to consult the full education committee, and in only one case the full council.
  To all this the Secretary of State may respond by referring to the thousands of responses that he has received—to the aggregate of 10,650 responses from individuals and 3,300 responses from institutions and bodies, as he told me last Thursday in a written answer. But the scale of the response should be of no comfort to him. It shows not compliance or agreement with his timetable but simply anger and concern about what he is proposing to do and how he is proposing to go about it — just as the scale of the response in Scotland shows unremitting hostility to the ideas of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  It takes a rare skill to unite the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, all the parent's organisations and local authority associations, as well as every wing of the Church of England, including the Prime Minister's favourite bishop, Dr. Graham Leonard, the Lord Bishop of London. The Secretary of State has achieved that improbable feat.
  The Secretary of State is aware of the opposition to his proposals and has had detailed analyses of the responses prepared for him by his Department. But the Secretary of State is so scared of the scale of opposition against him that he has refused my request to publish any of those analyses. I do not need to quote from the Secretary of State's erstwhile enemies; his friends will do. The Conservative Education Association, of which Mr. Phillip Merridale — a former chairman of the Association of County Councils — is a leading member, damned these proposals as "ideological extremism", and said that unless they were significantly modified the Bill
  "could lead to a drop in educational standards".
  The ILEA opt-out proposal was described as "narrow Toryism." The Association of County Councils, which is dominated by Conservatives, has accused the Secretary of State of paving the way for
  "an educational dictatorship of a type this country has consistently resisted."
  That is a point that Conservative Members should consider when they take account of the fact that written
  84
  into the draft Bill are no fewer than 31 separate occasions when the Secretary of State will be taking new powers under this central Administration.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with regard to new powers and dictatorships, one of the points that has not been to the fore is paragraph 33 of the consultation paper, on the curriculum in which the Secretary of State says that he will not only specify what qualifications and examinations will be offered in schools but that he will put, on a statutory footing, approval of the syllabuses or courses leading to those qualifications and that that will replace the existing free examination secondary school council? Is that not intolerable, because it will lead to educational dictatorship?
  Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about that further degree of centralisation.
  Dr. David Muffett, who is the Conservative chairman of Hereford and Worcestershire education committee, and who is no Tory wet, damned
  "the decision intemporately to accelerate the legislative process."
  The Bow Group said
  "the idea of state schools opting out convinces no one."
  The Secretary of State has even been unable to persuade the education committee of his own county, Surrey, in which his constituency of Mole Valley is situated, to back his plans. The Surrey education committee attacked the plans, and the county education officer, Mr. Malcolm Pinchin, made a plea to his Secretary of State. He said:
  "I hope he will sit up and listen."
  I must tell Mr. Pinchin that that is a vain hope.
  In June and July the Secretary of State told the world that he would listen, but he has now blocked his ears. Who can believe that the very same man who 10 weeks ago spoke of partnership, of working with the local authorities, of wanting the co-operation of the education service and its schools and of listening to what he was told should, at the Conservative conference, arrogantly and contemptuously dismiss all those who had taken him at his word but dared to oppose him by saying:
  "I do not intend to delay implementing our policies. I have no intention of changing our manifesto commitments.
  I will only consider proposals which will enhance and complement them."
  The Secretary of State was not saying that he will listen, not that he wants partnership, not that he wants cooperation, but that he will listen only when people tell him what he wants to hear.
  How does that square with the statement of his Parliamentary Secretary in the Lords, Baroness Hooper, who said:
  "The Secretary of State has said that he intends to move ahead only with broad agreement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 1070.]
  If what the Secretary of State said at the Tory party conference was to be the basis of the consultation — evidently from the cheers from behind him it was — why did the Secretary of State not make that clear when he started this exercise, or at any stage in the debate on the Loyal Address, or in his speech to the Conference of Local Education Authorities? He could have spelt out this critical qualification: not that he wanted the genuine views of parents, teachers, governors, or LEAs about the future of this nation's education service, but that he simply wanted to use those people, to plunder them for ideas to

  85
  provide the detail about the manifesto commitments that he and the Prime Minister had so lamentably failed to provide in the election.
  The House and this country deserve an apology from the Secretary of State for the way in which they have so grievously been misled. The very art of consultation implies that others may have greater wisdom; that it is worth them expressing their view. Consultation is a part of our democratic process. It is no wonder that the Conservative Association of County Councils spoke of fears of dictatorship.
  In one speech after another the Secretary of State has preened himself by comparing his new Bill with the 1944 Act that it will, in large part, replace. In his conference speech the Secretary of State said:
  "This will be the most important piece of educational legislation since 1944."
  Just before referring to that point the Secretary of State referred to Henry IV's Statutes on Education. I am not surprised that Henry IV is the Secretary of State's hero. It was Henry IV who played a dubious part in the downfall of Richard II. It was Henry IV of whom the Bard wrote, if I can find it—
  Mr. Terry Hayes: It is in part II.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this meant to be helpful?
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Straw: In fact, it was Henry VI part III, and it was Henry VI talking about Henry IV. He said:
  "Henry IV by conquest got his crown, t'was by rebellion against his king."
  Mr. Tony Baldry rose—
  Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State, let it never be forgotten, was once the vicar on earth for the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Secretary of State ran the right hon. Gentleman's election leadership campaign against the present Prime Minister in 1975. In the debate on the Loyal Address the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said:
  "To compare this as a great development with what Rab Butler did would make that great man turn in his grave."—[Official Report, 2 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 670.]
  And so it would, not only for the content of the legislation, but the manner in which it is being pursued. If the Secretary of State wishes a place in history next to Rab Butler — as Education Minister, if not two times loser for the Tory party leadership — he should begin by following his wise example. Rab Butler did not use the urgency of war to ride roughshod over his critics. He set out painstakingly to listen—and to change his mind. He published the "Green Book" in the summer of 1941; he did not publish a White Paper until July 1943 and did not publish the Bill until 13 December 1943.
  We all understand the wish of any Government to get their legislation through within a Parliament, but what is the rush? Butler's Bill went through Parliament, with extensive consultation, within the lifetime of a normal Parliament. What would be lost if the Secretary of State took his time and provided a worthy successor to the 1944 Act? If it would be too much to expect an aspirant for the leadership of today's Tory party to follow in the steps of Rab Butler, why not follow the example of his immediate predecessor, whose Right-wing credentials are far more impeccable than his own? Sir Keith Joseph listened and took time. The contrast between the Secretary of State's
  86
  railroading of the Bill and Sir Keith Joseph's careful approach to the 1986 Bill bears comparison. Sir Keith Joseph published a Green Paper in 1984, and a White Paper entitled "Better Schools" in 1985, but did not publish the Bill until 1986.
  We know that the Secretary of State's concern for state education is skin deep. Like those of every one of his Cabinet colleagues, his children were opted-out of the state system years ago. He has ensured that, whatever upheaval occurs in the state system, the private sector remains untouched by his proposals, even by the national curriculum, which will have no legal force in private schools. These proposals will dramatically and directly affect the 93 per cent. of children who are in local authority schools, and their parents and teachers. These proposals will damage the education of our children. They may blight a generation if they go through unamended. It is time that the Secretary of State listened to teachers, educationists and those on his side, but above all to parents, whose name he often takes in vain, and to the children on whose behalf they speak.
  I commend this motion to the House.
  7.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "require" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "that there should be no delay in the introduction of the Government's proposals for education reform, which have been endorsed by the electorate and provide an essential programme of action to deliver wider choice to parents, greater autonomy for schools and colleges to manage their resources in the best interests of the pupils and students, and higher standards of performance throughout the education system; congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals; and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation."
  Obviously the new Opposition spokesman on education wanted a debate at the earliest opportunity in order to expose at full throttle the Labour party's righteous indignation to our proposals. Indeed, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were so keen to debate the subject that earlier this afternoon they asked for it to be replaced by a debate on the economy. So much for their concern about education. At the first opportunity to discuss education since the recess they are prepared to drop the subject. On the matter of the urgency of getting our proposals on to the statute book, I can say only that it is a pity they were not on the statute book many years ago when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was at school because, clearly, he would have benefited from the national curriculum proposals on English literature and English history. He managed to misquote Shakespeare and mix up Henry IV with Henry VI. There is about 80 years between the two.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman slandered Henry IV by saying that he had a direct hand in the murder of Richard II. Even worse, he said that he had a "dubious part"—an innuendo. I must give way so that he can justify his innuendo about Henry IV.
  Mr. Straw: The reference to the Secretary of State's hero, Henry IV, appeared in "Henry VI, part III".
  Mr. Baker: I understand and follow that. Nevertheless, it was a stumbling, fumbling quotation that did little to

  87
  enhance the hon. Gentleman's argument. I quoted the statute of Henry IV because it laid on the statute book a right for any man or woman in the realm to send their children to whatever manner of school they chose. It is an interesting example of early parental choice. It is an example of Lancastrian values.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Baker: If hon. Members will forgive me, I believe that several maiden speakers wish to contribute to the debate and I do not want to take too long.
  The legislation that we shall bring before the House next month will constitute the most sweeping range of education reforms since the war. The hon. Member for Blackburn acknowledged that. I make no apology for that. It is the measure of the need for change. We are responding to the concern and worry of parents about standards. They know that, in spite of the high standards achieved by some of our schools, too often children are not achieving as well as they could or as well as they should.
  In all revolutionary change there is a powerful strand of evolution. The hon. Member for Blackburn gave the impression that there had been no debate about educational standards over the past decade. However, our proposals for the national curriculum, which I first set out to the Select Committee on Education in April, build on the national discussions started by Lord Callaghan, as he now is, at Ruskin over 10 years ago, the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate and others in developing wider agreement on the objectives of the school curriculum, and our White Paper "Better Schools" published in 1985. I hear that the hon. Member for Blackburn claims credit for the national curriculum because he chaired a Labour party working group on the subject in the 1970s. He half saw a good idea and buried it for 15 years. But lapsed virtue is better than no virtue.
  If the hon. Gentleman's ideas were so good, why did he spend the rest of the 1970s as a special adviser, not at the Department of Education and Science, but at the Department of Health and Social Security and at the Department of the Environment? Clearly, a prophet is not honoured in his own party. I have not had the benefit of seeing the report. Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy in the Library, together with the various responses that it drew? We would all find it interesting. I am sure that it should be submitted to the Chesterfield group of the Labour party as well.
  Our proposals for financial delegation to schools and colleges build on the best practice of a number of local authorities. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that. Local financial management is nothing new. It is a widely supported principle already being enthusiastically taken up by local education authorities and schools in many different parts of the country. At least 21 LEAs have developed experimental schemes. This is one of those areas in which the introduction of change is already running ahead of the legislation.
  More open enrolment, based on the concept of the standard number introduced in 1980, puts right a basic injustice of parents denied their choice of school where places exist and are unused. In practice, many local authorities already seek to ensure that available places in demand by parents are fully taken up.
  Mr. Graham Allen rose—
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to press on.
  Our proposals for grant maintained schools will restore diversity to our state system—a diversity so shamefully and wantonly destroyed by the Labour party when it got rid of the direct grant schools.
  In our manifesto we told the people clearly what we intended and why. There was no hidden agenda. Since then we have issued 10 consultation documents setting out the details of our proposals in advance of legislation. I take it that these consultation documents are the real burden of the hon. Member for Blackburn's complaint. The higher education White Paper proposing changes in the structure and national planning of higher education was published as long ago as last April and since then we have published three supporting documents.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn claims that the period of consultation since the election has not allowed those affected by the proposals to express their views. That belies the facts. There has been enormous interest in our consultation papers. Well over 100,000 copies of the various documents have been sent out in response to demand. That is on top of the 10,000 copies that we initially circulated to LEAs, churches, national bodies, parents' organisations and other bodies with an interest in our proposals. We have already received well over 14,000 responses. That is a very considerable response: evidence both of interest which our proposals have aroused and the care with which they have been considered. The timetable has been tight, but the responses show that those consulted have not found it unmanageable. Indeed, the responses precisely demonstrate that the object of this phase of consultation—to enable the Government to consider the views of the education service in drafting their legislation—has been fulfilled.
  Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State has had prepared for himself and his colleagues analyses of the responses, will he say, broadly speaking, what proportion of those 14,000 responses are in favour of his proposals and what proportion are against? If he cannot answer that now, will he place those analyses in the Library?
  Mr. Baker: I have already replied to the hon. Gentleman, and the House will know that I have already arranged for the responses that we have had in consultation from all public bodies, institutions, governing bodies and local education authorities to be placed in the Library. We sent over two van loads last week, and more will be sent this week. We have had many responses from individual members of the public, particularly on the national curriculum. I do not intend to make those available, for the simple reason that we do not know whether a particular respondent would wish them to be made available. I think that the hon. Member for Blackburn would agree with that.
  I have received analyses on many of the papers, but the analysis is a Civil Service and Government matter. As I have said, we have made all the responses available to the House. Others are free to analyse the papers and I believe that Labour party headquarters is well stocked with surplus staff ready to take on the task.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose—
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the spokesman for the Liberal party, but this should be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State said that he was interested in the consultations because they would be helpful in drafting the legislation. If he intends to publish the Bill in mid-November, why does the consultation document on charging ask for returns by 30 November, a full two weeks later?
  Mr. Baker: I made it clear in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman — I believe that it was public correspondence — that we do not intend to include proposals on charging in the first draft of the Bill because the consultation process has been extended. Local authorities have asked us to clarify the law on charging, and it is a very complicated matter. The first draft of the Bill will therefore contain no proposals on charging.[Interruption.] The Bill will be introduced in the Commons.
  As I have made clear — and I wish to do so again today — the consultation does not end with the expiry of the deadlines on each document. In drafting the Bill we shall take account of comments received up to the point at which the text has to be finalised for introduction to the House. My discussions are continuing with the local authority associations, the churches and other organisations. Last week I was handed the CBI's response to the national curriculum consultation document. My door remains open. Many of the provisions in the Bill will follow the precedent of previous education legislation in setting a framework within which the details of implementation will be established by secondary legislation on which there will naturally be further and extensive consultation.
  I shall explain to the House what that means. The national curriculum will be introduced only after the widest possible discussion and with the widest possible measure of agreement. That is why the reports of subject working groups will be published. I have set up two subject working groups and asked them to report by next summer. That is why the Bill will provide for a national curriculum council to consult education interests on my behalf before formulating specific advice on attainment targets, programmes of study and testing arrangements, and why I shall consult those interests again on the basis of draft statutory orders before seeking the approval of Parliament. We intend an open process, and that is what it will be.
  That continuing process of consultation will inform all aspects of our proposals. For example, many have expressed concern about assessment and testing, although not, to be fair, the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has made plain his support for testing. In September he said:
  "There's no doubt that the parents want some objective yardstick against which to measure their children's achievement in education."
  We agree, and we have asked a group of experts to come up with a coherent scheme of national testing and assessment to feed into the work of the subject working parties and the National Curriculum Council. Its report will be published and will form the basis of open discussion.
  For example, the consultation has raised worries among some respondents that the national curriculum will be over-prescriptive, squeezing out time for important aspects of the school curriculum. We have asked the subject working groups specifically to develop attainment targets which embrace important cross-curricular themes and to develop programmes of study to support those
  90
  attainment targets. The aim is to ensure that the national curriculum reinforces the best of existing practice in schools. The consultation process will ensure that these and other issues can be fully addressed.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
  For example, many who welcome our proposals for financial delegation express concern about some detailed aspects, and we recognise that. The legislation will leave with local authorities the responsibility for producing schemes of local financial management for my approval. We have commissioned consultants to develop work on the most effective and cost-effective ways of moving forward, based on the best practice that already exists. Their report will be published, I hope, later this year. It will help us to work with local authorities and others to work through and find solutions to the problems.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn then argues that the problem is not that we have not consulted, but that we are not listening. Let me make the position quite clear. I have stressed to the local authority associations and others that I would value their experience and knowledge in achieving our objectives. As I have already said, there are many detailed aspects on which I expect to work with the education service, many of them identified in the consultation exercise. But the solutions will have to be found within the policies and principles to which we as a Government are committed. That is why, for example, in a letter to the local authority associations I have asked them to put forward proposals
  "in the interests of establishing an agreed course within the bounds of the route marked out by the Government".
  A consultation process is not the means constitutionally by which we reach final decisions, although it can help to inform the proposals and the public debate. Parliament is the final arbiter. In the full light of what we have learnt from the consultations, we shall submit our proposals to Parliament to decide whether they should be implemented.
  No one will be surprised that the Labour party has chosen to debate procedures rather than the substance of our proposals today, as during the election campaign it showed that it was devoid of ideas on how to improve standards for children in this country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackburn, as he is trying to fashion a new education policy for the Labour party, but very little has changed. Just a few weeks ago, however, I heard one hesitant Labour voice asking some interesting questions. The following were some of them.
  What should we be doing about the fact that fewer girls than boys take science and technology? Should local authorities be considering magnet schools? How do we involve parents more in their children's education? What are our proposals for monitoring the progress of each child against the peer group and against national standards? Are we rigorous enough in monitoring our schools to ensure that they are performing to standard? Those questions are on the right lines. They actually recognise the national debate of the past 10 years. But when the leader of the ILEA put them to his comrades in the Labour party he was roundly condemned. Not only do Labour Members not have any answers — they do not even like to have the questions asked.
  Mr. Spearing: As the Secretary of State is asking questions, perhaps he will allow me to intervene.
  Mr. Baker: I am not asking questions. Those questions were asked by a leading Labour spokesman.
  As the New Statesman put it:
  "Neil Fletcher, and people like him, should have asked the hard questions years ago; they have been waiting to be asked for at least a decade since the James Callaghan 'Great Debate' on education ran into the sands. The Left did not face up to failures and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents."
  The reason for that silence is not difficult to find, and the hon. Member for Blackburn knows it. His party is the mouthpiece of the producers and not the consumers.
  Mr. Spearing: No.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn recognises that. As he timidly put it:
  "people in some of the white-collared public sector unions not affiliated to the Labour Party may have too much influence in setting the agenda and the language used."
  I do not know whether that was passed by the Chesterfield group, but the sentiment is impeccable. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The reality is that the Labour party, imprisoned by the producers, has not dared to set any agenda at all. There is real mockery. It is we who have identified the questions and it is the Government who have proposed the answers — answers that will give greater choice to parents, freedom from doctrinaire interference, improved quality and better standards for all our children.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened with care to the Secretary of State and it seems to me that his argument falls into three basic parts.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been general discussion for a number of years about matters relating to education and to the core curriculum. That is perfectly true, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot use that as an argument because he knows that many of the participants in that discussion, although they agree that there should be more commonality in the curriculum, disagree profoundly with the Government's proposals. I number among those people not just the professionals and those involved in education, but many members of the Conservative party. The Secretary of State cannot say that, because there has been general discussion, about some aspects of education, the detailed proposals which he is putting forward, which are anathema to many, do not require the fullest public consultation.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman sought to argue that he was somehow merely enshrining best practice. Any rational, objective judgment leads one to the conclusion that that is not so. A large number of authorities, many of them Conservative-run, fall within the right hon. Gentleman's definition of best practice but disagree with his proposals in the most pungent terms. The right hon. Gentleman represents the Bill as the great education reform Bill, but he knows perfectly well that many of his proposals go very much further than best practice. That is the truth. He would be doing the House more of a service if he were to admit to that here, as he claimed it to be the case when the audience was the Conservative party conference rather than the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman's final defence was that, somehow or other, he had a mandate, a consensus, for the proposals. I shall refer to that.
  However, first I should like to mention the slight jibing — not wholly unwarranted — for the Labour party's Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn
  92
  (Mr. Straw). He said that we were talking about procedures. For some who are not directly involved in education, consultation might be a procedural matter. It is pretty extraordinary that the Secretary of State sees it as a procedural matter, some arcane subject that should not concern the House of Commons. The opposite is the truth, and the Secretary of State knows it very well, for this is not a mere procedural matter. It is not an arcane detail—it goes to the heart of the Government's attitude on bringing in the proposals, which many regard as among the most damaging and divisive that the country has seen for many a long year. It goes to the heart of the Government's attitude towards education. It is not about procedures; it is about the honouring of promises. It is about testing the Government's seriousness to maintain education as a partnership, not dictated from the centre. It is about measuring the Government's true intent in dealing with choice and establishing whether this is the truth or a cover for more centralised control. It is about establishing what will be the climate of change that dominates a period of profound change in the education system as a result of the Government's proposals. What will that climate be? That is what it is about.
  Many regard those changes as fundamental, damaging and divisive. I number myself among those people, although the stated aims of the Government and the Secretary of State are ones with which I would wholly concur. The right hon. Gentleman says that his aim is choice. We shall see. He says that his aim is improving standards. We shall see. No one in the House or elsewhere would wish to gainsay those aims. I subscribe to them. The question is not whether the aims are right but whether the mechanisms and the means of putting them into practice are right.
  As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, one does not have to look to statements by Opposition parties to discover the view on the matter. I have taunted the Secretary of State with this before. Before the House went into recess, I asked him to produce a single reputable body involved in education, either a consumer or a producer, which backed his proposals. The Secretary of State always claims that we are talking about the producers. That does not apply to the National Confederation of Parent Teachers Associations, which agrees that the proposals are damaging, divisive, and dangerous and will be destructive to our education system. He does not even have to look outside his own party for such judgments. I shall mention just one of the many Conservative education authorities that have commented on the proposals.
  West Sussex is under massive Conservative control. It will be instructive for the House to note what the education committee felt in its resolution of 8 September. The committee stated:
  "The Committee feel that not only are these proposals unlikely to achieve the Secretary of State's objective of improving educational standards, but the costs of their implementation would be very substantial and the financial provision could be directed more effectively in other ways to the benefit of the education service."
  That is not the Opposition speaking. It is not the producers speaking, which the Secretary of State has found it easy to dispense with and attack. That is a Conservative education authority's reasoned comment on the Secretary of State's proposals. He cannot simply push such comments to one side as if they do not matter.
  The Secretary of State claims that there is a consensus in the country and that the matter was discussed during the

  93
  general election, so we can take it as read. But there is not even a consensus in his own party. That is the truth. If Conservative Back Benchers were more blunt, honest and frank, many voices would be raised against the proposals—a few courageous voices might even be heard tonight.
  Against that background, I quote the words of Oliver Cromwell:
  "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
  There are few who know anything about education who agree with the proposals in detail—
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: We are having a few history lessons tonight. I always find it extraordinary when Members of Parliament quote the words of Oliver Cromwell. He is the one figure in history who abolished us.
  Mr. Ashdown: Yes, but after the monarch of the day had sought to do exactly the same thing. I shall not go into too much detail, but it is instructive for the House to remember that many of its rights and privileges date from that time.
  I should like to ask the Secretary of State this question. In view of the comments even from his own party, the professionals, the experts, the head teachers whom he has called in aid in his support in the past, and from the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, will he not admit that he might be wrong? If he will, why has he conducted such a charade of a consultation process?
  We are entitled to remind ourselves that in his speech on the Gracious Speech on 1 July he promised that there would be
  "a debate not just in the house but in the country."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987: Vol. 118, c. 586]
  What sort of debate? Hon. Members, parents, teachers and those involved in education recall that promise and remind themselves that it has not been honoured. We have had a single-handed attempt to rewrite education over the brief months of the summer holidays when most are away.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: With respect, the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), has slurred teachers by suggesting that they were not prepared to use any part of their holidays to look at the documents that we are discussing. All teachers have done so. I have talked to many who have done so and who have been involved in discussions all over the country. What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that most teachers have found it possible to react to the consultation papers, but he knows as well as I do, and the Secretary of State knows better than anyone, the anger and concern about people having to respond to those consultation papers in a rush. For example, many members of boards of governors are changed at the end of August, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will know well. What decent period of consultation can there be under those circumstances? In many cases, consultation papers have not even been available.
  The process has been a farce, a charade. At best it has been a meaningless exercise and at worst it has been a deliberate attempt to provide a cover for the Government's intentions, indeed to provide a mechanism by which they can impose their own ideological prejudices irrespective of the views of others.
  94
  The hon. Member for Ealing, North might take account of other comments made by West Sussex. which will be instructive to him and others. It said:
  "There is great concern at the very short time allowed for comment which has not permitted any local consultation with governors, teachers, parents and other members of the local community. This is ironic in view of the Secretary of State's claim to value in particular the opinion of governors and parents."
  That is the view of a Conservative association. The authority said that the lack of time was ironic in view of the Government's pretence of valuing the views of parents and others. Indeed, it is an irony. It is an irony that the Government pretended that they would hand power to parents and then made it clear that they were not prepared to listen to them. It is an irony that they pretended that they were interested in choice, but are not prepared to allow a realistic partnership and realistic consultation. It is an irony that the Government said that they wish to take politics out of education, yet by overturning a decent process of consultation they have imposed their own ideology in a way that those who follow will use as a premise.
  I can imagine the roar of anger from Conservative Benches if a Labour or alliance Secretary of State had sought to impose those conditions without consultation and put so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Government's failure to provide realistic opportunities for consultation with parents frankly exposes the lie behind their proposals. They are designed to put more power not in the hands of parents but in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. They are designed not to create reform through partnership, but to impose ideology, dictation and tighter control from the centre. They are designed not to preserve a unified education system, but to create a broken, fractured one. A divided education system for a divided nation — that is the charge to which the Secretary of State is now open. That is not a procedural matter it goes to the heart, and it shows the lie that is at the heart of the Government's proposals about giving importance to the views of parents. By treating parents and the views of others with such arrogance during this period of consultation the Government have shown that they are interested only in imposing their ideology and wrecking our education system.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): This is a brief debate and I hope that hon. Members will seek to make brief speeches.
  8.31 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: Following your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not take up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), except to say that, throughout all these consultations, the parents have been mentioned time and time again. The decision to opt out of schools, the decision to give more power to teachers in the schools, and so on, show that. I believe that the more power one gives to parents and to teachers in the schools, the better it is for the schools and children.
  I realise that time is limited, but I want to refer to the matter of consultation, which is the basis of the debate tonight. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned polls. The poll that mattered was held on 11 June. Since that time, the Labour party has been looking

  95
  at its bellybutton, trying to change its policy, and hoping to get way with it before it pulls its shirt down again. Sometimes that is done openly, as in Chesterfield — I shall not describe the colour of that shirt, or even where it was made. I suggest that the party is now trying to catch up with consultation. The Times Educational Supplement said in its diary this week — I have never thought of that journal as being pro-Conservative, whatever Mr. Murdoch's other papers may be—that the Labour party is now the
  "party of educational standards, share ownership and the family."
  That leaves something out. It is not the party of those things but it would like to be, because it believes that unless it becomes so it will remain for ever more on the Opposition Benches. We sympathise with right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition. It is not very pleasant to be in their position. Now they say that they stand for share ownership and the family and consultation.
  Where was the consultation when circular 10/65 went out? I was at the chalk face then. A draft went out to the local authorities, and I should like to know how it was changed in the light of their replies when the final circular went out. Similarly, when, in 1974, the Labour Government came to power again — one of those remiss events of history for which we can think of historical reasons — an Act was passed in 1976 that ended the selective schools in this country, and I do not remember a consultative paper at that time. That Act probably did more harm to working-class children in inner-city areas than anything else that has ever gone through the House.
  If the Labour party wants to change its policies, I offer to help rewrite them. I have more time on my hands now, and I can help it make its policies more popular in the country — so much so that it will be cheered on both sides of the House.
  Likewise, when the direct grant schools went, there was a three-hour debate in the House, and that was all. I do not remember any other consultation about that. Obviously, the electorate noticed at that time that there was not much consultation. They agreed to punish the Opposition, and remembered what they had done, at the next general election. But there is no doubt that the electorate disagreed with Labour's policy and lack of consultation at that time. I remember how the Labour party claimed to have a mandate for circular 10/65 and for ending the selective and direct grant schools. Speaking of mandates, I have here an interesting document, "The Next Moves Forward". It is not exactly written in Shakespearian terminology, but it is in good 20th century prose. It clearly states:
  "First, we will establish a National Core Curriculum."
  So people knew what they were doing when they voted on 11 June. The document went on to say that it would give schools more control over their own budgets—that part is even underlined in a different colour. The colour is blue, which is a good colour, and it was well liked on 11 June, when it was a popular colour. It promised, thirdly to "increase parental choice." So, time and time again, we said exactly what we were doing and did it.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the consultations go on. Tonight's debate is part of the consultation process. My right hon. Friend has said that, until the proposals are set in concrete, consultation
  96
  will go on all the time. That is what many teachers and many people in the Conservative party would like. I hope that, consultation will bring change to some parts of the proposals. I am concerned by the fact that 80 per cent. of the curriculum is laid down — I think that that is too much, especially when it leaves out a second foreign language, the classics, home economics, business studies, art, music, drama and religious studies. That needs to be examined; some bright children should be studying two or three languages by the age of 15 or 16. What is proposed would be too tight a constraint upon them. On the other hand, there are other pupils who would prefer more vocational studies, such as they are being given in most countries these days, capitalist and Communist alike. I trust that such studies would be included. More time should be given to children who are vocationally orientated so that they know what they are doing and can get the jobs they want.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil talked about best practices. This is all about the better part of best. We were looking at best practices, and the better part is put in. I particularly hope that the consultation process—
  Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I listened to him for quite a long time, and I disagreed with him entirely. I am approaching my peroration, and I do not want to be slowed down on my run in or I may hit a hurdle.
  We have set an example: we have said what we are doing, we are holding consultations so that the amendments that people want can be put forward. When the Bill is laid before the House, it should be one that all of us, whatever drawbacks we may now feel it to have, can support entirely. I trust that the Bill will be cheered throughout the length and breadth of the country and that it will do for education what should have been done a long time ago—the tightening of standards and the raising of teacher morale throughout the country.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is always a good turn. When he got on to circular 10/65 I dreaded that he was going to quote from William the Conqueror, and probably not do so too well. Listening to the Secretary of State's speech, one never ceases to wonder at his bland effrontery. His amendment
  "congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals: and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation."
  In heaven's name, we had about as much consultation during the summer holiday as we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight about the state of the country—practically nothing, in spite of the Secretary of State's so-called van loads. He knows as well as we do that, on the Friday before the general election, the Prime Minister panicked. She was talking off the top of her head and she spoke such nonsense about education that every other Tory speaker on that day tried to undo the damage that she had done that morning. One of the people who tried hard was the Secretary of State, but he was defeated.
  Not only did the Prime Minister talk off the top of her head but we now have a Bill that embodies that nonsense and that we all know is practically unworkable.

  97
  Conservative Members show a pitiful inertia even when the Back Benches are full. When the Prime Minister says something that frightens them they all crawl to her. It is appalling that throughout Britain on this issue of education there is deep feeling and worry and that that concern is not at all reflected by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State and the Ministers around him constantly get confused and try to prove that something which is unworkable is workable. That is because practically none of them ever went through the state system of education, although some Conservative Members may say that somebody once did. The state education system is now in the hands of a group of people who are ignoramuses about it and do not know how it works or what to do with it. Those who are knowledgeable —and some of them were on the Select Committee on Education. Science and Arts with me — are terrified to say anything critical in case they get a kick in the teeth.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about what he says. Not only did I and my children go through the state system of education, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education also went through it. It is a little dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to make comprehensive and sweeping statements.
  Mr. Flannery: My statement was not at all dangerous. I said that some hon. Member would say that a Conservative Member had gone through the state system. There is no evidence in the Bill or in the speeches of Conservative Members that any of them did. If they did go through the state system, they have long since forgotten the experience because they are cutting education, and the Bill shows how much they hate the present education system. The Secretary of State called it the great education reform Bill and quoted Butler. In reality it is a deform Bill and does the opposite of the Butler Bill. It takes us back whereas he was taking us forward, after proper consultation.
  This Bill requires immense debate, yet people were allowed only six weeks in which to say something about it, six weeks in which Parliament was in recess and the schools were on holiday almost from the same date. The education committees could not get together to discuss it because many of their members were on holiday, and the consultation process was an absolute farce. Therefore, no real consultation has taken place. What sort of mentality is it that tests children at 7, 11, 14 and 16? It is the mentality that teachers had when we were youngsters and Friday morning was test morning. We are to return to that state of affairs. In heaven's name, what is to be tested at the age of seven if we have a curriculum that is much wider? It is the three Rs that will be tested. We are returning to the 11-plus, and the broad general education that has existed for years for our children will be taken backwards instead of forwards.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that the Government's aims are good. That is not true because they know that they are taking us back. Their aims are not good and that is why there is no consultation. They aim to deform a good education system by damning it with faint praise at the best and damning it with the mentality of the Hillgate group and the black paper that has spawned all this. The Government talk about grant
  98
  maintained schools, but most parents do not even know what they are and do not know about the opting out system. The Prime Minister says that nearly all parents will opt out and the Secretary of State says that practically nobody will opt out. I wish that they would get together and make up their minds about it. If, as the Prime Minister says, all parents opt out, we will have a Department of Education and Science that looks like the Pentagon because it will have to try to control the masses whom the Prime Minister says will opt out.
  The Government do not know what they are doing and they will create chaos in the education system because they are frightened of maddening the Prime Minister. She has said what is to be in the Bill and that is what is happening. Who have the Government consulted about the admission of pupils to maintained schools? What will happen when one school is full and another is nowhere near full? Will there be a vicious market-type struggle over who will keep a school open or who will close it? When this is put into action, it will hit the ordinary people and the children like a blow between the eyes. No one knows what open enrolment will mean. Have the details ever been talked through? Ninety per cent. of parents already send their children to the first-choice school. What will happen if a popular school is oversubscribed and other schools are undersubscribed?
  Will head teachers be sent on some kind of accountancy course? I was a headmaster and I know that many schools now have to account for what they spend. There are experts in the local education authority who can see to that. Why do the Government so hate local democracy about which the Tory party once boasted? They want to destroy the local councils and they are beginning with the local education authorities. It is done with the spurious statement that they will give more power to parents. They are giving more power to central Government and taking it away from everybody, including the parents. They will charge for extras.
  The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has experience of the capitation allowance. We went to the salubrious areas and found that capitations there were already three times as big as the capitation allowance. Some Conservative Members know about that. The wealthy gave money to the schools and the schools had plenty of books. In the east end of my city of Sheffield there is poverty and everything is run down. We have had cut after cut from the Government. How much money can my constituents give education to pay for singing lessons and music lessons? My constituents do not have the money, but people in the well-to-do areas will be able to pay.
  I now turn to the grant maintained schools and the opting out procedure. I beg the Secretary of State to go back and consult properly so that all of us can get into the consultation process and the Government can learn what it is all about. The Government are undertaking a step in education that is so backward that it will cause chaos throughout our good system. I saw the German system when I was a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, and I have also seen the French system. They are nowhere near as good as ours.
  It is about time that we had a little patriotism from the Conservatives about the education system that they are trying to destroy. There are no computers in all the primary schools in West Germany — we have computers in practically every school — and there are hardly any

  99
  computers in their secondary schools. If the Secretary of State has his way he will destroy the entire education system with what he calls his great reform Bill. Even at this late stage, the Minister and Conservative Members should face up to the Prime Minister, tell her about the grave dangers for our children's education, and tell her that we need more real consultation because during those six weeks when the schools were closed the House was also closed.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I shall not pursue all the hares that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) started, but, if the education system is as good as he said, why did the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, Lord Callaghan, introduce the great debate on education? My children were educated in the state sector, and I was educated in the state sector, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) and her children were. For the hon. Gentleman to imply that the children of Conservative Members are not educated in the state sector is absolutely and totally wrong, and he knows it.
  This debate is a pre-emptive strike by the Opposition at the forthcoming Education Bill. Opposition Members recognise that that proposed legislation will do for education what the sale of council houses has done for tenants. It will increase the amount of freedom and choice that is available for the individual. It is an indication of the paucity of the argument of Opposition Members that their attacks have been concentrated on the time for consultation rather than on the substance of that consultation. Of course one would like to have seen even more time made available for consultation. That having been said, however, the Government have a clear responsibility to introduce as quickly as possible measures designed to improve the quality and standard of state education. There can be little doubt that the proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science will do exactly that.
  In answer to parliamentary questions from me dated 20 and 24 July, the Secretary of State made it clear at that time that he was publishing a consultation document on the Government's plans to delegate to schools more control over budgets and also a consultation document on grant-maintained schools. The consultation document on the national curriculum was published even earlier than those two dates—on 9 July. Copies of those documents were widely distributed throughout the country. They were distributed to chief education officers of local education authorities and all national organisations that were known to be interested in education. I am advised that about 58,000 copies of the consultation document referring to the national curriculum were distributed and that about 7,500 replies were received. The Department of Education and Science received a massive response to those documents and that underlines the fact that, while the timetable may have been tight, it certainly was not impossible. The consultation documents are neither the beginning nor the end of the debate. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves. There is too much sedentary noise.
  Mr. Pawsey: It is worth while recalling that there has been substantial discussion on all the consultation documents. The Secretary of State spoke to the north of England education conference as long ago as last January, when he signposted the way forward for education in the latter part of the 20th century. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) reminded us, education featured prominently in the Conservative manifesto. Our proposals were then widely debated. Those proposals must have been partly responsible for the massive Conservative victory that we had only four months ago. We won our third consecutive victory on the proposals contained in the manifesto, and those proposals referred in detail to education.
  While the formal deadline for the response to consultation documents was 30 September, I have not the slightest doubt that comments will be received and, more to the point, will be evaluated during most of the period during which the Bill will be considered. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) tried to argue that point from a sedentary position during the speech of my right hon. Friend. Clearly Opposition Members and the public will be able to make an input while the Bill is being discussed. Therefore, there will continue to be a substantial opportunity for comments to be made and registered during the next few months. Hon. Members, therefore, may feel that a fair and reasonable amount of time has been made available for interested parties to respond to those consultation documents.
  Interestingly, I read in the magazine Report, published by AMMA, that, on the issue of financial delegation to schools and grant maintained schools, the question, "Will it work?" was answered by a qualified yes. In my opinion, that yes will be endorsed by the House and by parents and teachers. The proposals for the national curriculum for financial delegation to schools, for grant-maintained schools and for open enrolment will do much to ensure an improved standard of education for our children. I remind hon. Members that the great debate on education was opened by the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in 1976, some 12 years ago. It was recognised 12 years ago that the education system required major overhaul. The proposals of the Secretary of State will ensure that the education system is overhauled and improved.
  During the past 12 years the minds of educationists have been directed to methods of improving state education. It is nonsense to suggest that the consultation documents were the first indication that change was necessary. It has been indicated for years that change was necessary.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Pawsey:The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not, because time is pressing and there is at least one maiden speaker in the debate.
  While the scope of the imaginative measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend may have taken Opposition Members by surprise, they will do a great deal to improve the quality and standard of education in our schools. I urge the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: It is appropriate that the motion being debated is on the question of consultation. In the debate no doubt issues involved in the consultation documents will be raised. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science asking for an extension of the consultation period, following discussions I had with my local education committee and others. The Minister replied in a letter dated 15 September, which is a significant date relative to the consultation documents. I raised the interests of my constituents in the education proposals and I was fascinated that the last sentence of the letter stated:
  "We welcome your constituents' keenness to participate in this debate and look forward to receiving their comments in due course."
  The closing dates for the consultation documents were 11 September, 16 September, 16 September, 30 September, 9 October, 16 October and 30 November, yet more than half of the closing dates were earlier than the date of my reply from the Minister. If the Minister and the Secretary of State thought it appropriate that consultation should continue, they should have made an announcement and said that consultation could continue for another month or two.
  The people in my constituency to whom I have talked about the matter were worried about two things. The first was the proposals themselves and the six to eight weeks allowed for consultation. The second was the number of documents that were produced at the same time. My county is the northernmost county of England and is a long way from the Department of Education and Science. It takes some time for documents to reach us. Indeed, sometimes I think that they come by stage coach. But we received the documents and thought that we would have an opportunity to consult about them. I talked to as many people as I could. The matter was of key importance to the people in my area, whose major criticisms related to the limited consultation period and the fact that five documents were published at the same time.
  The changes that were suggested in the documents were of great interest to my constituents, especially to parents and school governors. We were especially worried about the fact that our education committee, which was not scheduled to meet until August, had little opportunity to discuss the issues. More especially — this is where local democracy was challenged — the county council did not have the opportunity to discuss the issues because the time scale did not allow it. Indeed, the report from the education committee will go to the full council only this month. The democratically elected members of my county council — from all political parties — will not have had the chance to contribute to this debate.
  Another criticism related to the range of changes proposed in the consultative documents. Many people in the education service thought that to introduce them in the time scale proposed, immediately following the implementation of parts of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and bearing in mind the parts of that Act which have not yet been introduced, was likely to produce chaos and to be a programme for disaster. It says little for the Secretary of State's pious comments about wishing to offer wider involvement in education policies to everyone who is interested in education.
  During the recess, I, with many other right hon. and hon. Members, made a point of consulting on the
  102
  proposals. The first clear message that I received from people in the education service, especially head teachers, was that they wanted a period of stability and calm to allow schools to cope with their existing problems of staffing levels, resources, auxiliary help, accommodation, and morale—especially among teachers — as well as the development of the GCSE. The latter is causing great upheaval because of the shortage of teachers, ancillary staff, equipment and finance. The evidence from my constituency is that there will be even more serious problems in the near future. A report published in May by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations confirmed that that is a problem in many other education authorities.
  As well as being a Member of Parliament, I am chairman of a board of school governors in my constituency. It is extremely important to me because I started my public life as the secretary of a parent-teacher association. I am now chairman of the board of governors of the same school and have been involved with it for more than 20 years. The governors are conscientious, enthusiastic and responsible citizens. They have received no documents and have had no opportunity to consult. They will wish to consider the full implications of what is suggested in the legislation. I suspect that the same applies to boards of governors all over the country. They will all wish to participate in this planning exercise.
  No one has yet mentioned the need for consultations with the teachers' unions. I understand—the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong — that the professionals in the education service have had no direct discussions with the Secretary of State. That is contemptible. The first thing that a wise industrialist or commercial operator who wanted to make fundamental changes in the service that he provided or the business that he ran would do would be to talk to the work force and line management. The Secretary of State believes that that is not necessarily appropriate.
  Perhaps a quote from the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, Fred Smithies, might cover everything in connection with the consultation. He said:
  "The haste with which these proposals have been cobbled together and the unacceptably brief period of time that has been allowed for consultation is indicative of the Government's determinaton to push ahead with its education philosophy without properly addressing the educational consequences of such a move."
  It appears to some, and certainly to me, that the Secretary of State has an eye on bigger things. He needs to show his dynamic leadership by producing ill-considered proposals. I should remind the Secretary of State that leadership means nothing if he does not have a majority of support from those who do not hold his views.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Timothy Raison: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education arid Science is right to aim for a Bill in this Session. We have had a rather depressing period in education — during which there has been a great deal of trench warfare. Education is now trying to move forward. Essentially the Bill would help that process. Of course, I must accept that there has been less time for consultation than I might have liked in an ideal world. It will be particularly important when the Bill comes before the House that the Committee stage is treated — as I know it will be — with great

  103
  seriousness. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in charge of the Committee — and I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I hope that we shall see the kind of Committee stage which shows that the Government are prepared to be flexible and which will be a worthwhile process of consultation.
  I acknowledge that in one respect I have already said that there is one item in the Government package that could, if necessary, be held over. In the debate on the Loyal Address, I said that I thought that proposals for the opt-out provision had not yet had the elucidation or received the acceptance that I would have liked. If that is still the case in a few weeks' time, there is no reason why that provision should not be held over. Otherwise, we should press on. Essentially we should press on because education as a whole is in a mood to get away from the trench warfare and enter a constructive phase.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to take a very positive and active role in his present job. It is worth remembering that section 1 of the Education Act 1944 refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to
  "secure the effective execution by the local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  Reference has been made to R. A. Butler, who was one of the greatest Education Ministers. Looking back to the debates about the Education Act 1944, it is interesting to see that Butler said:
  "it is high time the Minister and his office became more keen on taking the educational initiative themselves."—[Official Report, 21 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 810.]
  He also said that he proposed that the central authority should
  "lead boldly"
  and
  "not follow timidly."
  That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing.
  The curriculum in the new Bill will be the most important aspect of the new Bill. It is essential that we get the curriculum absolutely right. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be particularly sensitive to the points that have been put to him during the consultation process about the curriculum. One of those points relates to testing. That has aroused a good deal of uncertainty and apprehension.
  I have been committed to testing for a long time. In 1976, I wrote a booklet called "The Act and the Partnership". I put forward the argument that we should have testing. I said that we should test the numeracy and literacy of all children at certain stages of their schooling, for example, at the ages of eight, 11 and 14. The ages chosen by my right hon. Friend are slightly different but I believe that the principle is the same. It is important to have a clear idea of what we are testing for. What is the testing process about? In my booklet, I stated:
  "The purpose of this"—
  namely, testing—
  "would not be to provide a selection procedure for allocating children to one school or another. Nor, I hope, would it be used to establish or reinforce a pecking order among schools, or among their children. The aim is emphatically not to provide 'marks' for publication.
  104
  The object is rather more akin to the traditional school medical inspection. More precisely, it is to provide information about the progress of the individual child, so as to see whether he or she needs greater attention in one way or another; information, for use within the system only, about the school and the class within the school—again, so as to see if extra help is necessary; and, thirdly, national statistics (which might include information on what is happening in different parts of the country)."
  Today, it is no longer possible not to publish figures for schools as a whole. Even if one were to try to keep them secret — I do not think that one should do so — they would surely come out. In keeping with the emphasis on parents' rights to know what is going on in schools, it is right that such figures should be available. Nevertheless, the philosophy that I tried to put forward was right; we should see testing more as a diagnostic tool than as a kind of instrument for competition. I am not against competition — I am all for it in sports and many other areas—but our present task is simply to find out what is going on. After all, if the Secretary of State is to exercise his great responsibilities for education, he certainly needs to know what is happening in our schools.
  Another point, which I hope will come out of the consultation process, is the need for greater curricular flexibility. I am sure that all hon. Members have heard pleas from groups of teachers, especially those with particular interests in mind. Home economics teachers have been fairly active in writing to us. I have also had letters from drama teachers and classics teachers. As it happens, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will open a debate on the matter next Monday, so I shall not press the point.
  It would be sad if the state education system is forced to remove classics from the curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be prepared to allocate more time to non-core and non-mainstream curricula elements. I devoutly hope that my right hon. Friend will be flexible.
  When my right hon. Friend talks about the objectives of the matter, he should clearly say that one of the most crucial objectives in our education system is the transmission of the great things in our culture and civilisation from one generation to the next. That aim was not set out clearly enough in the consultative document, but at the end of the day it is most important. It is absolutely vital that such transmission should be available not only to the elite—those who are lucky enough to go to great public schools — but to every child in the country. I do not know whether the idea is to put some kind of stated objectives into the Bill; it is slightly against the tradition of English parliamentary drafting. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that, above all, he is concerned about quality. If he avoids falling into the trap of rather dreary utilitarianism and the worship of alleged relevance, he will have the chance to produce the kind of Bill that will deserve to rank with the Butler Act.
  There is not much time for discussion, but there is a need to get on with the matter rather than to delay the process for one more year. That is why I support my right hon. Friend's decision to bring the Bill before this Session of Parliament.
  9.15 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I know of nobody outside the Government who welcomes the

  105
  short time allowed for consultation. All the letters that have received, and most of the consultation replies that I have seen in the Library today, reveal anger and disagreement with the Government about the length of consultation.
  The Government say that the time allowed is acceptable because they sorted out the issue in their manifesto, but I cannot be the only person here or in the country who was deeply confused, to put it mildly, at the statements by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Their statements were confusing and conflicting and certainly did not clarify the proposals.
  The tragedy is that all this symbolises the Government's lack of respect and lack of care for the very groups they claim to champion — the parents, governors, students and children. The Government's attitude to them is, "We know best. Do as we say or you will suffer."
  The Secretary of State's attitude this evening was like someone threatening with a shotgun and saying, "The process will be much easier if you help me pull the trigger." Is that the nature of the relationship which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to establish with those who care about education? Is that his attitude to parents, students, teachers and others in the community who are worried about the future? Such an attitude leaves the other side little say and even less influence.
  Relationships are at the heart of any good education system. The Secretary of State seems uncomfortable with that relationship. A welcoming and warming relationship with parents and schools is crucial to the pre-school child. It is important to children throughout their school lives. It is crucial to those young people who are considering whether to stay in full-time education after the age of 16. It is also crucial to those who want to return to education, particularly if their earlier experiences were not fulfilling.
  Process is as important in education as content. People need to be confident that they will learn how to read, write and think. The way in which they learn how to learn will determine what they are able to learn. Unless the process and the content go together, the content will never be put across. That is the tragedy. The Secretary of State seems to have no understanding of that.
  A process that involves those who want the best education service possible for all our children is central to enabling us all to work together to provide opportunities. The Government forgot that in preparing their Bill. They forgot the importance of process — taking people with them and involving them every step of the way.
  If the Government had taken everyone with them, they might have addressed the real issues. Instead, their proposals are seething with the dogmatic prejudices and fundamentalism of the new Right of the Tory party. There is a desperate need for changes and improvements.
  The consensus is to look for more opportunities in education and in the role of our people, yet the Government present us with something that will cut opportunities and reduce the role of many people. There is a desperate need to encourage many more of our young children to stay in full-time education after 16. There is a desperate need to ensure that all children benefit from a rich and wide curriculum that matches their age, ability and aptitude as well as the needs of our society as we move into the 1990s. There is also a desperate need to improve opportunities for all our children by enabling them to take advantage of free school education if that is appropriate. There is still a need to ensure that we have a well-trained,
  106
  committed and enthusiastic teaching force that has the opportunity to be retrained to work effectively in all subjects.
  The tragedy is that the Education Bill that we are promised addresses none of those issues. Far from being radical, the Secretary of State has been reactionary. In essence, he will reduce parental choice, have a much more centralised system of control, narrow the curriculum and reduce substantially the opportunity for the majority of our children and young people to benefit from a wide, open and free education service.
  The Secretary of State has missed a golden opportunity. There is consensus on the need for changes and progress in our education system, but instead of seeking out that consensus and building upon it the right hon. Gentleman is creating conflict and opposition. That may be a legitimate political tactic, but when measured against the opportunities of our children and young people it is nothing short of criminal.
  9.22 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Mention has been made of the writings of Right-wing philosophers, the publication "No Turning Back'. and even Shakespeare. But I wonder why so few Labour Members did not study the New Statesman more carefully, which recently contained an article entitled:
  "Failing the masses. Passing the buck."
  It said:
  "The Government have seized the initiative of change: while Labour is stuck in defence of its own past. Labour's ideological driving force is the pursuit of equality yet its policies have never really given priority to education despite its being one of the major sources of social immobility and inequality in Britain. Labour has allowed the Tories to steal the political initiative".
  The fact is that too many of our average and below-average children are betrayed by the education system. We have one of the best education systems for high fliers, and our higher education is among the best in the world, but while 30 per cent. of pupils leave school with little or no qualifications, and 60 per cent. drop science or a foreign language at 14, there is absolutely no way in which the Government can refuse to act.
  As for consultation and discussing "the process" in schools, I feel a great sense of unease. Last year we went from month to month with consultation on the replacement to Burnham and teachers' pay and conditions. That consultation led to disagreement and stalemate. The only thing on which there was agreement was that everybody disagreed with what the Government were doing. Consultation tends to reinforce the prejudices of the education establishment and the teaching profession—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Labour Members should pour scorn on the idea of improving the lot of the children who suffer under the present regime and that they should regard it as a laughable matter. I know that many Labour Members are more concerned with the trade union mentality of protecting the rights of those involved in producing education than they are with delivering the goods.
  The national curriculum has been under discussion for many years. For the Government now to delay legislation would be an unforgiveable waste of the time of those who most need their education, perhaps now as never before. There is a glorious philosophy that children must never be tested for attainment, because one child might do well and

  107
  another badly; one child might feel a failure. That is why parents do not know where they are, children are not given the help that they need and standards are not set. I remind Opposition Members that that is what the Swann committee identified as a major reason for so many children from ethnic minorities doing badly in schools. Expectations are not set for them, so they do not rise to them. It is a crucial variable.
  The head of the Secondary Examination Council the other day asked why so many people now run in marathons. The answer, he said, was that an expectation was set. We want to raise people's standards and bring out the best in them.
  Local financial management is just another way of giving the heads more power. For how many years have many of us talked about the vital role of the head? Professor Michael Rutter, in his book "Fifteen Thousand Hours", compared 12 different schools in Southwark. What did he find was the crucial variable that accounted for some schools being so much more successful than others? It was the ethos of the school, and, particularly, the character and personality of the head — his ability to manage the school, set homework and ensure that lessons started on time. That is the nuts and bolts of education reform, and the way forward for our children.
  In my constituency there have been some experiments in local financial control. They have been warmly welcomed, having been tried over several years. One school has enormously improved its word-processing facilities, computers and other equipment by making do with less supply cover and arranging for teachers to cover for themselves. Giving schools opportunities to make such decisions is the way forward.
  Parental choice is crucial. Children do better if they have the confidence of their parents — if they are going to the school that their parents wanted them to attend. Opting out offers an alternative system to those who have not the resources to pay themselves.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he makes his final decisions, to look for a rather higher percentage than a 50 per cent. vote from parents. I should be happier with a two-thirds majority. If we are to ensure that head teachers such as the successor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) as headmaster of Highbury Grove school can continue to provide the sort of education that parents want, in which teachers want to participate and in which pupils do well, we must find a way to release schools from the education authorities that are undermining the very ethos that is being sought.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to move forward swiftly with the legislation. The negative, hostile, backward-looking debate about consultation on these measures is yet another example of how conservative the education establishment is becoming. We owe it to all our children to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to acquire the qualifications and skills that they need for the jobs and the citizenship of the future. My right hon. Friend's proposals offer an opportunity that we must follow up urgently. We want action—not words.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I sometimes wonder whether some Conservative Members
  108
  know how the consultation process works in education. A period for consultation has been allowed from the beginning of August to the end of September, but many governing bodies do not meet until the end of September. The same applies to many teachers' trade unions and parent-teacher groups.
  When the schools reopen after the holiday, there follows a period of settling down and getting started again. As all those organisations do not generally meet until the end of September, hardly any of them have been given any time to respond in the detail that the proposals need. As there will be major and radical changes to our education system, parents have the right to consider the proposals in depth and to respond in detail.
  I have in my hand a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Parent-Teacher Associations of Wales and the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education. It protests about this Government's inadequate consultation on the proposals. Between them, they represent many thousands of parents, and they speak for many thousands of parents — the consumers.
  I am also concerned about how the tests will affect children with special education needs. Have hon. Members heard about the self-fulfilling prophesy and its effect on children with special education needs?
  There is also the problem that more children may want to go to a school than there are places for them. Who is to decide which children go to that school and which children do not? Will there have to be selection? Will it be for the governing body to decide?
  Many important and fundamental questions have not been answered, yet the Government have moved an amendment that congratulates themselves on the consultation period. I do not know how they can congratulate themselves on a consultation period that is no more than a sham and that provides the parents of those who are directly affected with no adequate say on proposals that will affect the future education of their children.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Two criticisms have been made in the debate, one of which goes to the heart of our education system. We must remember that this Government have been in charge of the country's education system for the last eight years. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised that what is wrong with the country's education system is this Government's education policy. The second criticism is that we were told that we picked the wrong issue — that we concentrated on procedure rather than on substantive proposals. But surely we picked the right issue. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has told us that the proposals have been introduced in the name of greater parental involvement and freedom, and that if one believes in freedom one consults. However, this Government have to be criticised for their lack of consultation.
  During the last few months the Government have been more concerned about stifling debate and proving that debate and comment are irrelevant than about offering genuine opportunities for parents, teachers, local authorities and the churches to comment and to influence the discussion. In no way could this be clearer than in the practicalities of the consultation process — at most two

  109
  months on important documents. In the case of the majority of the documents, the consultation process was held during the long summer holidays. No wonder that the Government have been criticised by parent-teacher associations and local education authorities, both Conservative and Labour.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, I do not intend to give way.
  The Secretary of State referred to his proposals as great educational reforms, but an uncharacteristic modesty in his case prevented him from engaging in meaningful debate and discussion with the public.
  Mr. Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Fatchett: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I do not intend to give way.
  In addition to restricting the consultation process and making it difficult, the Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to listen.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) commented on the Secretary of State's speech at the Conservative party conference. It may be forgiveable and understandable that in the atmosphere of that conference the Secretary of State felt that he had to use those words. Indeed, no Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister sitting at his right hand, would have done otherwise; no Secretary of State in this Government has the courage to do otherwise. Perhaps we can understand and forgive those comments, but, sadly, the Secretary of State was at it again only last week. After meeting local government leaders — Conservative and Labour — the Secretary of State was reported as saying that the Bill would not be altered whatever the critics said. So much for an open door, so much for an open mind and so much for consultation.
  With typical dogmatic arrogance the Government have dismissed as unrepresentative organisations that have had the audacity to criticise. That fate befell the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. That moderate, non-party political organisation, which speaks for parents, was dismissed out of hand because it did not say what the Secretary of State wanted to hear. That is typical of the Government and the consultation process.
  The Government may respond to our criticisms by saying that their behaviour on these proposals is no different from that in other respects, but that is scarcely a plea in mitigation. For instance, if a bank robber says that on previous occasions he has got away with it, he cannot say that he was innocent on the occasion when he was caught in the bank carrying out the robbery, but that is this Government's excuse. Maybe the Government should plead that that they are innocent or that they adopt the same practice in other contexts, but continuous bad practice is no excuse for what the Government have done to our children or for what they propose to do to our education system. Nor is it relevant for the Government to say that their proposals are firm or that, as the right hon. Member Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, everybody knew what they were about.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that the proposals were so simple that they were underlined and that they had blue edges. But that overlooks the difficult process of conception that occurred during the general election. The
  110
  Secretary of State was saying one thing, but the Prime Minister was saying something else. We saw the unlikely sight of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), as chairman of the Conservative party, acting as a conciliator and peace-maker between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which was a most unlikely role for the gentleman. To say that the proposals were firm is not true and has never been so; some of the detail is open to serious comment and discussion.
  When we look at the proposals for ILEA we encounter a different problem. Parents in London are to be allowed a short time to comment—five weeks—so in that respect they have fared no worse than parents in other parts of the country, but there is one substantial difference. Parents in London may have an education authority thrust upon them without any consultation with individual parents. We are told that parents should have a right to vote on opt-out procedures and a right to vote in other circumstances; that is the language of parental freedom. Why does that language not apply with regard to practice in London and the boroughs that make up the Inner London education authority? Why is it right to leave a decision to councillors in certain circumstances but riot others? Why will the Secretary of State not consult parents in London? We know the answer: if he consulted parents by ballot he would lose and the proposals would be torpedoed.
  We may have been a little remiss in not asking for a longer consultation on the London proposals. We should have recognised the record of the Secretary of State. When he chaired a committee looking at inner London education a few years ago he said that the only proposal he could not consider was the very proposal that, as Secretary of State, he is now suggesting. Consistency and principle do not run very deep for this Secretary of State. Perhaps we should have asked for more time so that London parents could have had an opportunity to allow their voices to be heard.
  We are told that the process of consultation is not necessary because the Government's proposals are firm. How firm are they? For example, how firm are they in relation to testing? Who will win the argument? Will it be the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister? Is it to be diagnostic testing, to which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred, or is it to be competitive testing which is favoured by the Prime Minister and Right-wing Back Benchers? Will it be success or failure for our children at the age of seven? If it is failure, that means, within the system favoured by the Government, failure at the age of 11, 14 and 16. The child is doomed to failure at the age of seven.
  The Government are not clear on the matter of grant-maintained opt-out schools. How many are there to be? Are they to be encouraged? At first the Secretary of Stale said that there would be only a few. In an interview in The Independent the Prime Minister said that there would be thousands and that they would be encouraged by an independent trust. The Secretary of State then changed his mind and said that "some" schools would opt out. Is not the word "some" the very sort of word one would associate with this Secretary of State? It is limited enough to ensure that informed educational opinion is not too antagonistic and it is elastic enough to ensure that the Secretary of State remains in office. He is doing the Prime Minister's bidding yet again. Parents have a right to know the Government's intentions.

  111
  The same is true of the core curriculum. As has been said, it is an idea that runs deep in the Labour party. If modesty allowed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would tell the House that he was probably the author of the deep and meaningful proposals for a core curriculum. Modesty prevents him from doing that. The Secretary of State has had an opportunity to move by consensus to a national curriculum, but what has he done? He has united people not in support of a core curriculum but in opposition to it. At no stage has he recognised the educational difficulties that that presents. That poses problems for teachers, parents and, above all else, for Ministers. I saw the comment in The Times Educational Supplement on 16 October, just two short weeks ago. It said:
  "Poor Mrs. Rumbold. What a bad time she is having. Two weeks ago she sought to convince the Schools Curriculum Development Conference of the failure of the education system by serving up anecdotes about spelling mistakes and typographical errors. Last week it was the primary heads' conference at Coventry … which enjoyed the benefit of her judicious comments. Her gloss on the national curriculum consultation paper certainly helped to raise the temperature of a group of professionals among whom the Government might have expected to number many friends. A disastrous combination of patronising condescension and palpable ignorance antagonised most of her audience."
  That is not a Socialist publication. I do not blame the Minister; I blame the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for sending the Minister without a clear brief and clear definition of what the proposals are about.
  Political freedom in this country has always depended on Governments, regardless of the size of their majority, being prepared to consult and to listen. That is the essential fabric of our democratic virtues and practice. If ever there was an area in which decision-making should be based on consultation and consensus, it is education, because here we are shaping not just the nation's future but the next generation and our children's future. With a Government committed to dogma and the ideology of a competitive market, the hopes for children and the wishes of their parents and teachers have been scandalously ignored.
  As I travelled through the west midlands to attend an education meeting the other day, I saw an advertisement describing a particular brand of beer as "untouched by progress". If Saatchi and Saatchi had thought of that slogan, they might still be the Conservative party's public relations agency. It also struck me as being the most apt and correct description of the Secretary of State's education proposals. Untouched by progress, they will at best leave our children in the same state. At worst, they will leave them with dramatically reduced education opportunities. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I suppose that we could have expected this debate to prove an interesting if somewhat arid precursor to the wider debate that will take place throughout this parliamentary Session. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I repeat the points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made at the beginning of the debate in relation to the enormous interest shown in the
  112
  consultation documents. A large number of copies have been issued to a great number of interested people, not just individuals but organisations, including local education authorities, churches, parent organisations and many others. The claim that insufficient time was allowed for consultation has been disproved by the weight of the responses received by the Department. I remind the Opposition that if they really intend to read all those responses they will have to set aside several days and nights, if not weeks, to consider the two van loads of responses currently reposing in the Library.
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Rumbold: No. I have only a short time in which to respond to the debate.
  All this has acknowledged that in the present phase we have merely started our consultations. My right hon. Friend confirmed today that he has been very ready to meet organisations wishing to make representations.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Endlessly.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Endlessly, as my right hon. Friend rightly says.
  The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) asked whether teachers' organisations would have the opportunity to consult. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be meeting those organisations and discussing matters with them. We believe that such discussions are valuable and they will continue during the passage of the Bill. There are, of course, other channels of representation during any parliamentary process which, even in my gloomiest moments, I believe that the Opposition may yet consider and seek to make some constructive contribution. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked why the consultation period for the ILEA proposal was not longer. It is, in a sense, a local and not a national issue, and in any event it has provoked some 5,000 detailed responses, which are currently being studied by our Department.
  I remind Opposition Members that the councils that may opt out are democratically elected people, bodies which, no doubt, will take account of the representations and local opinions that are put to them. I understand that that procedure is already being undertaken in the boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth, which have shown an interest in the possibility of making their boroughs local education authorities.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Rumbold: I am not giving way.
  I remind Opposition Members that ultimately the decision will rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the order. Parliament will debate that order and decide whether to approve it in a true democratic way. Therefore, Opposition Members should look carefully at what they are saying about our proposals for ILEA and agree with us that there has been adequate consultation.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am sorry. I shall not give way. I want to continue to address the debate and answer some of the interesting points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Predictably, there have been positive and negative responses. My hon. Friends have made some extremely good and sensible contributions, with positive points and backed up with good argument.

  113
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) rightly affirmed that the people who matter in the debate on our proposals are the parents, the children and the teachers. He made the most valuable point that Opposition Members have derided consultations by their own actions in the past. I shall give one instance of what happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, the Labour party's intention to abolish direct grant status was announced in its October 1974 manifesto. In March 1975 the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced:
  "The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools."—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 271.]
  That was a Labour Secretary of State.
  No consultation paper was issued between the election and the announcement. The change was made by order — the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975. A circular was issued explaining the effect of the regulations on the direct grant schools and the options open to them. The abolition of the direct grant status implemented a recommendation of the Public Schools Commission's second report of 1970. It was asked by the Labour Government in 1967—
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Frit. [interrupution.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Rumbold.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The commission was asked in 1967 to look at the future of direct grant schools. I am certainly not frit. I am simply answering the debate as I am entitled to. I shall continue to answer it in the way that I wish.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (M r. Pawsey) was correct to emphasise that there is a clear mandate—not directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to carry out the promises made in our manifesto on education reforms. He also said that no meetings could be convened that were not necessary. That is also my experience. If councils want to convene a meeting of the education committee or the council as a whole, most can do so. If any Opposition Members would like to look at the record of some of the councils that are currently hung councils, they would see that many have extraordinary council meetings and additional education meetings as and when they feel like it. So the argument that these meetings could not have been called is a little thin.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked a direct question and I want to answer it. He asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be a member of the Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with me when I confirm that he will indeed be leading the Committee considering the Bill, which is his Bill. I must also say that my right hon. Friend's role is to lead boldly rather than to follow timidly. I have noted carefully what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said about testing, and I hope that I can reassure him that he will be comforted when he sees our own inclinations on that subject. Similarly, we have looked and shall further look carefully at any consultative
  114
  responses that we receive — as we have clearly said all the way through that we shall do on the national curriculum.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) was right to point out that there have been many examples in the past of expectations in our schools that are far too low. She examined each of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has put before the country and rightly pointed out that many people support them wholeheartedly.
  A number of negative points have been made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. That was to be expected. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) accused us by saying that parents on governing bodies thought it ironical that they did not have enough time; but they were clearly ignoring the assurances that m) right hon. Friend has been giving them. We are saying clearly that there will be a continuation of these consultations, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to some of the responses—
  Mr. Ashdown rose—
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the responses that I have given rather than argue with me at this stage.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) accused the Government of neglecting to take the consultation process to people within the education system. That is not so: we are conversing at length with people in the education service. If there is any question of them thinking otherwise, I suggest that that is because they do not wish to know that we are busy listening to what they have to say. I am glad that the hon. Lady emphasised the point that we should work with the professionals in the education service, because we fully accept it. I hope., therefore, that when she comes to the Committee considering the Education Bill she will join the Government in taking up every improvement that we have offered to the education service and supporting them, as she seems to be so keen on many of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has made.
  To the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I say that many of the governing bodies have responded, and he would find it interesting to note that they are still responding and we are still listening to them. The whole argument from the Opposition seems to have been centred on some slender evidence that the Government have not consulted and are not listening. I should be interested to hold the debate once again if' we had some proof that Opposition Members had looked at the responses and were satisfied at the way in which our consultations had gone. If they wish to discover whether the proposals have come out in favour of or against the responses, they should read them. As I said at the outset, this debate is a precursor of things to come. Sadly, it has focused on procedure rather than on substance and that points to the conclusion that the Opposition know that they must oppose in a pavlovian way the reforms of education.
  Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 325.

  Division No. 34]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fatchett, Derek

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Fearn, Ronald

  Alton, David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Donald

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

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Flannery, Martin

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fraser, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Battle, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Beith, A. J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bell, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

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

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blair, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Hardy, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  Hinchliffe, David

  Buckley, George

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Caborn, Richard

  Holland, Stuart

  Callaghan, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hood, James

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Howells, Geraint

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Coleman, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Lambie, David

  Cummings, J.

  Lamond, James

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leighton, Ron

  Darling, Alastair

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livsey, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Doran, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAllion, John

  Dunnachie, James

  McAvoy, Tom

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McFall, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  116

  Marek, Dr John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Snape, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliott

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Murphy, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William

  Wall, Pat

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Patchett, Terry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pike, Peter

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Radice, Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Randall, Stuart

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Anthony

  Reid, John

  Wray, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Cook.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amos, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burt, Alistair

  Ashby, David

  Butcher, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butler, Chris

  Atkinson, David

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cash, William

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, W.

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cormack, Patrick

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cran, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Critchley, Julian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David

  Boswell, Tim

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

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowis, John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Tony

  117

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jackson, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Janman, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evennett, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Favell, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knapman, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Forth, Eric

  Knowles, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Knox, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Franks, Cecil

  Lang, Ian

  Freeman, Roger

  Latham, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fry, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gale, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gardiner, George

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Gill, Christopher

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Lilley, Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lord, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gow, Ian

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maclean, David

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Madel, David

  Grist, Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Ground, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mans, Keith

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marland, Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marlow, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hannam, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mates, Michael

  Harris, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mellor, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Miller, Hal

  Heddle, John

  Mills, Iain

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Hill, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Holt, Richard

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howard, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

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

  Mudd, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Needham, Richard

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Newton, Tony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Irvine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Irving, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  118

  Patnick, Irvine

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Pawsey, James

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sumberg, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Portillo, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Price, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Raffan, Keith

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Renton, Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thurnham, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tracey, Richard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Trippier, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rost, Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ryder, Richard

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walden, George

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shersby, Michael

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Sims, Roger

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Squire, Robin

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stern, Michael

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

  Stevens, Lewis

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the interests of the nation's children require that there should be no delay in the introduction of the Government's proposals for education reform, which have been endorsed by the electorate and provide an essential programme of action to deliver wider choice to parents, greater autonomy for schools and colleges to manage their resources in the best interests of the pupils and students, and higher standards of performance throughout the education system; congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals; and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from the events of this evening that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]—who is prepared to speak to the press, to speak to the stock exchange, to speak in the City, to ask for representations to be made to the financial institutions about the sale of BP, and who has invited representation from abroad as well as from home, but who is not prepared to come to the House to answer questions about the serious problems that are worrying hon. Members constituents.
  We have been told of the serious consequences of the stock exchange collapse for jobs and industry. Why is the Chancellor not prepared to come to the House and answer questions about the problems facing industry and about interest rates in this country? Why, when we know that the Chancellor has been in the building this evening, is he not prepared to come into the Chamber to speak?
  Why is the standard bearer of free market forces, who has been defending free market forces for the eight years of this Government, unprepared to come here and defend free market forces when they have been exposed for what they are?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not have a rerun of the previous points of order.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I hope that we will not have a re-run of the points of order that we had earlier this evening. They are not points of order that I can answer. I think that the whole House had better wait to see what happens tomorrow.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not disgraceful and demeaning that, given the problems—[Interruption.]—the only thing that the Opposition can do is to try to make mean, peevish, small-minded political capital out of it. Is that not one of the reasons why they did so badly at the last general election and why they are failing?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on with the fisheries debate.
  Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to listen to a further re-run of points of order that have nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Banks: This is a different point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it a genuinely different point of order?
  Mr. Banks: Yes, Sir. We have reached the point at which this has been reduced to the level of low farce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating the House with
  120
  contempt. He was in the House at 8.27 pm, moving exceedingly fast. Therefore, one can only assume that he was probably on his way to another dinner appointment. It is outrageous that he cannot be at the Dispatch Box to make a statement, if indeed it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not Frank Larsen.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know nothing about the Chancellor having been in the building. He certainly was not in the Chamber.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier this evening.
  Mr. Faulds: Yes, I was.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity then. If he had been here earlier, he would have known that I cannot do anything about the matter. It is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman. He is the last hon. Member whom I shall hear.
  Mr. Faulds: I was here a little earlier. I am just a little degree surprised that you did not notice me, Mr. Speaker. I was obviously too quiet for once. I shall remedy that now. Some hours have passed since the last exchanges on this matter. I do think — I hate to lecture you, Sir — that you have a very grave responsibility as the Speaker in terms of what happens in the conduct of government. We all know — it is no good your nodding your head — that frequently there are private exchanges behind your Chair. All that is needed—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to listen to this nonsense.
  Mr. Faulds: It is not nonsense. Where is the Chancellor? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Sit down. The hon. Gentleman must not allege that I take part in private discussions behind the Chair. I have been in the Chair most of today. The hon. Gentleman should make his point of order.
  Mr. Faulds: The point of order is very simple. A grave crisis threatens our country. We have a Chancellor who is supposedly responsible for the economic policies of this country. He has not the guts or the gumption to come down here. I think that a little private word from you, Sir, might rectify the matter.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had a fair run this afternoon.

  Sea Fisheries
  10.24 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
  That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
  Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the following motions were considered at the same time:
  That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1136) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
  That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1134) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the three statutory instruments be taken together?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with matters over which I have absolutely no responsibility. I cannot get the Chancellor to come here this evening. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is now merely taking time out of the debate in which many hon. Members who have fishing interests wish to take part.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We once again arrive at a situation in which the Chair is placed in an extremely invidious position by, sometimes, the action, or, more frequently, the inaction or cowardice of the Government.
  For some days past, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, various efforts have been made by the Opposition to ensure that the Government, in the person of the Chancellor, come before the elected House of Commons to make a statement to the nation on the Government's position with regard to the implications for the real economy of the collapse of the stock exchange. True to form, the Chancellor has evaded all responsibilities. If we arrive at a position on a Monday night in which you are continually bombarded by points of order from both sides of the House—Hansard will show that earlier today and this evening contributions were made from both sides of the House—it is directly a consequence of the failure of the Government in a democracy to make themselves at least answerable, if not properly accountable, to the House of Commons.
  The force of what has been said today from both sides of the House means that in the course of tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the responsibility of coming before the House to explain the Government's view on two issues. The first concerns the response in terms of interest rates and other matters over which the Government have influence and responsibility. In such matters the Government should at least account for themselves to the House. Secondly, the Govenment should explain their view on the flotation of BP shares and the privatisation issue. This is of interest not only to would-be purchasers of those shares but to the economy in general, the whole future of investment, and to the structure and possibility of our success.
  122
  In these matters it is essential—not only in respect of your position, Mr. Speaker, as the neutral observer and keeper of order, but for the whole country — for the Government to be responsive, if not responsible.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am certain that it will have been noted by the Leader of the House who is on the Front Bench. I call Mr. Gummer.
  Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take any more points of order on this topic.
  Mr. Maxton: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. During previous points of order I understand that you asked whether it would he for the convenience of the House to take the three fisheries instruments together in one debate lasting one and a half hours. I had great difficulty in hearing your remarks. The House did not have an opportunity to decide, so I think that it should be given another opportunity to say whether it wishes to do that.
  If the normal conventions concerning statements are not to be obeyed, why should we agree to the convention of taking three statutory instruments together?
  Mr. Speaker: I understood that it was for the convenience of the House to take the three instruments together. I put the Question and received consent. I again call Mr. Gummer.
  Mr. Gummer: The three measures are necessary to bring Community regulations into effect in the United Kingdom and to enable us to benefit from Community funding. It is therefore sensible for the House to take the three together.
  In terms of expenditure, the fishing vessels grants scheme is the most important. The scheme will enable the Fisheries Ministers to grant-aid the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels with the objective of bringing our fishing fleet up to date. Our stocks are limited and we cannot always fish to capacity. For that reason we have to be careful that modernisation of the fleet does not significantly increase fishing capacity.
  The new scheme involves a higher rate of grant than its predecessor for vessels less than 33 m in length. The grant will be 30 per cent., the maximum allowed by the scheme, rather than the 25 per cent. in the earlier scheme. The United Kingdom pressed strongly for this higher rate at the Fisheries Council meeting last December to compensate for the reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the available grant from Community funds.
  I am glad to say that we won that fight and it is a great help to the English, Scottish and Welsh fleets. I am happy to say that we were also successful in maintaining at 50 per cent. the overall maximum grant in most areas.
  The scheme also provides that financial assistance should be given only to vessels which are constructed or modernised in member states. I am sure that the provision will be welcomed by our boat builders, who face stiff opposition from subsidised yards in non-EC countries.
  It would be possible to go through the detailed provisions and answer in advance the questions that hon. Members will no doubt wish to ask, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I restrain myself and answer at the end, with the House's permission, the matters raised in the debate.

  123
  I should, however, illustrate the scale of financial aid that has been available over the three years from 1984 to 1986. United Kingdom fishermen benefited from about £23·5 million in grants and almost £11·5 million in loans, plus £22·5 million of Community funding. The new scheme will allow the process to continue and will allow fishermen to plan ahead with confidence.
  The objective of the second instrument is to encourage vessel owners to investigate new fishing opportunities. I am anxious that our industry should be given every encouragement to explore the potential of new fishing grounds, especially in the south Atlantic. I am, therefore, pleased to be able to report that several companies have either applied for assistance or have indicated their intention to do so. The grants are restricted to vessels of 18 m and over. The Community will pay 20 per cent. of the approved cost of exploratory voyages and we shall contribute 10 per cent.
  The Council regulations also provide member states with the option of continuing to pay grants for the decommissioning or laying-up of fishing vessels, but we shall not be carrying on with those measures in the UK.
  The final instrument provides fish farmers in Great Britain with a national grant rate of up to 10 per cent. to enable them to qualify for Community aid under Council regulation 4028/86.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that grants are available under the FEOGA scheme for fish farms in the west of Scotland and that Kyle and Carrick, Cunninghame and other coastal areas can get 40 per cent. grants—which is a helpful level—but Cumnock and Doon Valley can get grants of only 25 per cent., even though that is an area of high unemployment?
  Will the Minister review the level of FEOGA grants—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is being optimistic.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend may wonder how fish farming can be carried out in Cumnock and Doon Valley, which is landlocked. I assure him and the Minister, who, I suspect, has fished a loch or two in his time, that it is possible, and a major scheme in my constituency could go ahead if the higher rate of grant were available. Will the Minister give me an undertaking — I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and would accept his personal undertaking — that he will examine whether grant levels could be reviewed in the light of the anomaly that has arisen? A landlocked council has been able to carry out such activities; that may not have been envisaged when the scheme was introduced.
  Mr. Gummer: I should like to have known the hon. Gentleman long enough for him not to make the mistake of suggesting that I have cast a fly in any loch anywhere. I have no intention of giving the undertaking for which he asked, because the Community suggested that certain areas needed particular help. I understood that the Opposition were keen on such policies. Therefore, efforts have been made to give that extra help to certain parts of Scotland and not to other parts. My experience of extra help is that those who do not get it are all too ready to complain that it is not spread to them.
  124
  There is no doubt in my holding out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that we could change the areas that are covered. They have been agreed and it would be difficult to reopen the consideration. A great deal of negotiating was done to ensure that part of Scotland was helped, and I am sure that he would want at least some of Scotland to get extra help. I cannot suggest that we should be likely to bring in the whole of Scotland or even that part with which the hon. Gentleman has such close affinity.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware — and, if not, will he consult his hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who will confirm it — that the Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area has the highest unemployment in the country? It is in that area that the project is envisaged. The reason that Cumnock and Sanquhar was not included was a genuine oversight — a misunderstanding — and I do not blame the Minister. I merely ask him, in his present benevolent mood, to agree to re-examine the matter.
  The Minister and I both understand the intricacies and difficulties of the European community, and we know that it is very difficult to reopen such issues. But the Minister must realise that if issues are important enough, we expect Ministers to take them up within the Community. All I ask tonight is that the Minister does not dismiss the matter out of hand at 10.34 pm, but agrees to take it away, have a look at it and let me know whether it is possible to review the position.
  Mr. Gummer: I am anxious not to mislead either the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) or his constituents. I therefore do not wish to give any undertaking this evening that might lead the hon. Gentleman's constituents to believe that there was any realistic possibility of the lines being redrawn.
  It would also be churlish of me not to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he has raised the matter, I shall examine it, as he would expect me to. However, I hope that he will not place too much upon that promise. The results of our negotiations were not results of decisions idly reached. They were hard-fought and long-run, and, although I should be happy to be found wrong, I doubt that it would be possible to redraw those lines.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way, but may I make one short comment first?
  One of the purposes of debating instruments such as these is, ideally, for the Minister to make a short speech at the beginning, allow hon. Members to put their points, and then — with the House's permission — answer those points later, rather than a series of interruptions taking place. I realise that such instruments give rise to a good many individual, local problems, rather than more widespread issues.
  Mr. Alec Salmond: I recall that, in 1976, European Commission policy identified the whole of Scotland as a sensitive area, particularly dependent on the fishing industry. It actually identified north Britain, but I think that that meant Scotland. The Minister's negotiations in Europe seen to have taken us from the whole of Scotland being identified as a sensitive area to just some of Scotland being so identified.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has followed the negotiations with the care

  125
  with which he suggests that he did. If he had done so, he would realise that no part of England, Wales or Scotland was included in the original proposals. It was only through a strenuous fight on behalf of Scotland by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, our hon. Friends in Scotland and myself that we achieved our end. Far from being a diminution, it represents a considerable increase in the area covered.
  In those discussions I was bound to say to many of my colleagues that, when we had won what we sought, we would end up with those who were not included feeling that they had been left out. Not only fishermen in other parts of Scotland, but many English fishermen, some of them from areas of higher unemployment than the parts to which we refer, feel that they, too, are disadvantaged.
  There is a problem whenever special help is to be given to special areas. I am perfectly prepared to support the giving of such help, but I warn the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to tread carefully. Many parts of the United Kingdom could put up very good cases, and some of them are not in the middle of a land mass.
  Mr. James Wallace: This matter is capable of solution. I fail to understand how grants for seagoing vessels could possibly he made available to anyone who lives in a landlocked area.
  Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that differential rates of grant apply to sea-going vessels but that that part which relates to fish farming sets a maximum of 10 per cent., with no differential area being designated anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gummer: Sometimes it is better to allow hon. Members to dig the hole that they have set out to dig rather than to underline their digging of it.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) suggested that his landlocked constituency should be considered, even though it is not one of the great sea fishing centres of our nation. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that part of his constituency does not lie on the coast, and it can hardly be said to qualify for fishing vessel grants. I restrained myself from making that point, in case there are representatives of the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper in the Press Gallery. I have decided to think about it, but I doubt whether that will lead me to do something about the landlocked part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  These measures have specific effects in particular parts of the country, those that lie on the coast. During the debates hon. Members will naturally wish to raise particular points and I shall be very happy to answer them.
  This package of three schemes will enable our sea fish and fish farming industries to continue the important process of modernisation and development. They are mainly concerned with traditional fishing, but for the first time there is an extension into the fish farming area called, in European Community lingo, aquaculture. We ought to be pleased about that, because an increasing part of the market for fish is now provided by fish farmers, and the United Kingdom has increasing expertise in that area.
  It is important that the United Kingdom should benefit from the significant levels of financial aid that are available from Community funds. Agreement to these measures will enable us to do so. The schemes form an important part of our fisheries policy, and I commend them to the House for approval.
  10.43 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: These orders deal with financial support for the fishing industry in Great Britain. That was the subject of Sir Gordon Downey's recent report, to which I shall refer in a few minutes.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate and comment on the proposals. Although we welcome the orders, we do not do so unreservedly, and I shall outline some of my reservations, criticisms and disappointments in what I promise will be a brief speech. As always, I shall try to be an honestly awkward critic.
  All right hon. and hon. Members want to protect and promote the interests of this indigenous industry. The same is true of the increasingly important fish farming industry, and the Minister was right to emphasise the importance of the third order that relates to fish farming. The statutory instrument that deals with financial assistance for exploratory voyages and joint ventures is the least vital of the three, although, in its modest way, it may have some significance for the owners of larger vessels. How many vessel owners have sought such assistance in the recent past? I look forward to some enlightenment from the Minister on that point.
  This is a useful if modest measure. It may encourage owners of larger vessels to undertake voyages to catch species of fish that are as yet not commercially viable. As a measure it may be more widely used by owners in other EEC fishing nations in the Mediterranean basin and off the west coast of Africa.
  The statutory instrument that is of major importance to our fishermen is the one that deals with grants for the modernisation and renewal of vessels. This is a particularly important instrument for fishermen who own and crew ageing vessels, or who own boats that urgently require modernisation. It is right and proper that priority should be given to the replacement or modernisation of such vessels. Typically, a new vessel is far more productive than one of similar overall length that was built 20 or 30 years ago. Recently, in Stornoway, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who I am sure will try to catch your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the skipper of a small fishing boat that was built for his father in 1947. I have no doubt that that skipper would be delighted to replace his elderly vessel with a new one if he could afford it, but we must remember that new vessels are astoundingly expensive.
  I welcome statutory instrument No. 1135, but I urge the Government to reduce the time that a fisherman applicant must endure before he receives approval to go ahead with his order. That is important for the fisherman and for the small shipyards that build these vessels.
  It is argued that these measures assist with the reconciliation between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Having said that — we are dealing with financial support for the industry — I must point out that I am deeply disappointed with the Government's decision to discontinue the decommissioning scheme. Some 225 vessels were decommissioned over a period of three years at a net cost to the United Kingdom of just over £15 million. In his report, "Financial Support for the Fishing Industry in Great Britain", which was published in July, Sir Gordon Downey said:
  "Over half of the expenditure was incurred on 15 large freezer trawlers. Two of these trawlers were brought back into

  127
  the industry temporarily for the minimum period to qualify for decommissioning grants averaging over £½ million. Ten of the boats were subsequently sold for sums ranging up to £900,000. None was scrapped. On 30 April 1987, after the NAO had completed their investigations, the Minister of State for Fisheries announced in a Parliamentary written reply that"—
  he—
  "would not continue with the scheme for decommissioning.".
  That is a matter for major regret. An abuse of the decommissioning scheme occurred when those trawler owners received that amount of money, but that legal abuse should not have led to its abrogation.
  We must maintain a modest decommissioning scheme that cannot be abused by the larger trawler companies. There is no other sensible way to restructure — in plain English, to reduce—the size of the fleet. A restructuring of the fleet cannot be achieved by our licensing scheme because those licences are gaining in financial value month by month. I believe that the Government must think again about their decision to decommission the decommissioning scheme.
  Incidentally, why were trawler company fishermen never given a decommissioning grant? The nation has paid for the decommissioning of large trawlers but not their crews. Skippers, mates, deckhands, engineers, cooks et al were simply slotted into the dole queues with precious little, if any, redundancy pay. For 19 years my brother Leslie worked as a deckhand and, latterly, as a mate and skipper for one of those firms and, when it decided he was surplus to requirements, it gave him the princely sum of £551.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: He was lucky. Most people got nothing.
  Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, he was luckier than some but he certainly was not lucky to work for 19 years in what must be the most dangerous industrial occupation in the United Kingdom and receive that sort of squalid sum when his services were dispensed with. The trawler companies were given financial assistance by the state to build and decommission their vessels. Their employees got next to nothing or nothing for their years of hard work and loyalty.
  I shall refer to fish farming and statutory instrument No. 1134. Naturally, I am delighted that the state gives assistance to that growing industry. There are exciting developments taking place throughout the whole of the United Kingdom's fish farming industry. In Scotland fish farming is one of the fastest growing industries. In that context, Scotland ought one day to overtake Norway as the principal fish farming industrial nation in the north Atlantic. I was in Norway recently visiting fish farms and,
  128
  although it has a good lead over us, I believe that we have one supreme marketing advantage: Scottish salmon. Recent estimates by the Scottish Development Agency and others suggest that farmed salmon production could treble over the next few years. At this moment the industry in Scotland employs over 1,000 people in full-time and part-time work in what are remote communities. It is essential that the development of the industry is carefully controlled. Greater scope must be given for local involvement and the statutory instrument must pave the way for that. Other industries such as tourism and fishing must not be harmed by an expansion of marine fish farming. Fishermen, for their part, have no desire to impede the development of fish farming, but it must be sensibly controlled. A sympathetic account has to be taken of fishing activities be they static or mobile.
  I know that lighting and marking regulations are spelled out when the Crown Estate Commissioners issue leases for fish farms, and I know that that advice is buttressed by advice obtained from the Department of Transport and the lighthouse boards. Nevertheless, we need to demand that the monitoring of lights and marker buoys be rigorous and efficient. I should like to ask the Minister, for answer if not this evening, certainly in the near future, which state agency is responsible for that inspection work and whether it has the resources to perform the work effectively? Have maps been produced recently by the Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland which denote carefully the marine fish farms?
  I have to express a word of criticism regarding those somewhat shadowy figures, the eight or nine Crown Estate Commissioners. They have astoundingly wide powers over fish farming. They alone control access to much of the foreshore and to all of the seabed out to territorial limits. For example, fish farmers who wish to anchor sea cages off the shore must obtain permission from the commissioners. There is widespread concern, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, over the commissioners' apparent reluctance sensibly and realistically to consult local authorities and communities on the development of land and seabed under Crown Estate ownership. The present system is not good enough for these powerful men, the commissoners, are too shadowy. I do not believe that they are best equipped to act as planning authorities or arbitrators when there are problems and conflicts over coastal amenities or the maritime environment. Perhaps the time is drawing near when we seek the amendment of the Crown Estate Act 1961.
  These statutory instruments must be examined in respect of their expected and unexpected consequences, and that is the argument that I have advanced. I welcome the instruments, but I have serious reservations.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: It is with sadness that I report that this day we have had to bury in my constituency a "boy ashore". I refer to Mr. James Read, a fisherman who was killed in the hurricane last week. I am sure that the House will join me in sending to his faily its condolences at this difficult time. A man ashore died and the entire fleet had to remain ashore while a force 12-plus gale was blowing. I am sure that all East Sussex Members recognised the circumstances when they heard that the Newhaven lifeboat had set sail to rescue the crew of a French trawler during the gale.
  I hope that the House will approve the two fishing vessels schemes. The European Community conservation regime has helped fishermen all along the south coast and brought more men into the fishing fleet. We have a growing and prosperous fleet and we have a good and sound programme of conservation. Young men are coming forward and they are welcome in an increasingly prosperous industry.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to the Falklands, but sad that it has taken so long to get to grips with this great opportunity. It is regrettable that the Foreign Office took so long to understand that which was available to us not so far away from the Falkland doorstep.
  The measures before us require an investment of more than £32,000, but who will make the accompanying judgments, and what will be the effect of the other conditions that are involved? I should like to know more about the time that will be taken to agree that grants should be available.
  It continues to be thought that those in Scotland and Northern Ireland are at a greater disadvantage than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those in Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive grants of 40 per cent., while those elsewhere will receive grants of 25 per cent. We in the south-east have pockets of high unemployment, such as that in Hastings and Rye, of 12 to 14 per cent. Why should we be considered to be less disadvantaged than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom? There is stupidity in the continuing desire to perpetuate an assistance policy that bears no relation to the reality of unemployment and employment opportunities in various areas.
  I am pleased that grants are available. I declare an interest, in that I have a boat, which I hope will not need rebuilding for some time. Mr. Phillip in Rye will be delighted to hear his name mentioned in the House, but he is the last person serving the Hastings and Rye area who can build the ships that we need to go to sea. Such people must not be disadvantaged simply because of where they live and a decision made far off in Brussels.
  The available science and technology to establish where fish are is not up to scratch and would not be accepted elsewhere. There is no sensible sample and analysis system to determine what is going on. Dover sole and plaice come from Hastings and Rye, not Dover, and it is desperately disappointing that the Government have allowed shingle dredging off the south coast where we believe plaice and sole spawn. We do not have the analysis necessary to establish whether they spawn there, and it is silly to make
  130
  rapid judgments without the necessary scientific data, but we must judge whether it is better to have the shingle or the fish.
  The Government's fishery advisers maintain that it is no easy matter to determine the problems, but I should like to know what the Government are prepared to do to preserve an industry which is now so vigorous.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: We, too, pay tribute to the constituent of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) who died in the gales and extend our sympathy to his family. It is ironic that an onshore fisherman was killed, as those of us who represent fishing constituencies know about the hazards that those who go to sea face regularly.
  The schemes under debate have been given a general, although tempered, welcome. The Government are no longer to continue with the decommissioning grants, some 225 of which were awarded. I wonder whether that is fewer than was expected. When restrictive licensing of pressure stocks was introduced, many people who sought a licence bought old vessels of low catching capacity for the equivalent of the decommissioning grant and used the licence on a much more modern vessel of much greater catching capacity. Interaction between decommissioning grant and the restrictive system of licensing may well have served to increase the fleet's catching capacity. Did the Government expect greater take-up of the grant? Perhaps the Minister can explain the decision to discontinue it.
  As to the rate of grant, it is undoubted that, where some areas are to be preferred to others, grievances will be expressed in areas which do not qualify for higher grant. I am exceedingly grateful that my constituency is designated as part of the west of Scotland for this purpose. We shall go along with that if it means that we shall obtain an additional rate of grant.
  The fact that the whole of the east coast of Britain has been excluded should not blind us to the fact that the prosperity and health of the fishing industry differs in various parts of the east coast. Undoubtedly, there has been improvement, and the Minister said at Question Time last week that he had been to Peterhead, so he will know that the industry there has, in recent months, been relatively prosperous. The same could not be said of a place such as Amble, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Obviously, there are pockets where an additional rate of grant would have been most welcome. We hope that the provision is not set in stone for all time, and that, if possible, other means of assistance to these hard pressed areas might be forthcoming.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further problem of the grant system at present is that it has prevented the smallest yards — those that can only assemble one boat at a time—from laying up a second boat after one is finished before a new order comes in if they are to get a grant for it. That has meant that, on more than one occasion, when they have not had replacement orders to take on after their current work, they have been forced to lay off their work force and lose their skilled people.
  I can think of an example in Mevagissey in which the boatbuilder, despite having a high reputation. has a gap in his order hook and may well therefore lose the skilled men who allow him to continue the business.
  Mr. Wallace: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. These grant condtions are often complex and the rules are strictly enforced. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will not be lost on the Minister.
  A further point about the differentiation of grants is that there is a lower rate of grant for larger vessels in sensitive areas than elsewhere. We are, of course, receiving a larger rate of grant from the European Community. However, it has been said that, whereas the grant that comes from our own Sea Fish Industry Authority tends to be paid promptly, the grant from the European Community is often long delayed. Thus, some of the advantage of a higher rate of grant is diminished by the fact that interest payments must be paid over a longer period of time. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take that into account and see whether the process could be speeded up.
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was sensible, in so far as we could, to help the smaller boats especially, because they were the ones directly affected by the economic circumstances of the areas concerned. There is a real problem for large boats that come from areas that may be disadvantaged themselves, but the boat may be a profitable one competing with areas that are equally disadvantaged. So we felt that we should help the smaller boats as far as we could — boats from smaller communities in which the economic reasons for this differentiation were obvious. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was the right balance to strike. It was a difficult decision to make, but it seemed important for an area such as the hon. Gentleman's own.
  Mr. Wallace: I was certainly not trying to dispute that point. I accept that there was a difficult judgment to make and a balance to strike. The fact that there has not been a great outcry from the industry suggests that the balance cannot be far from right — although it has not satisfied everyone. With regard to delayed payments, and the interest payments that accrue, the advantage of the higher rate of European grant is not as great as would appear to judge from the cold figures. Whilst we have these higher rates of grant, we shall increasingly find, now and in the coming months, a level of frustration among applicants, as the number of applications will clearly outstrip the amount of money that is available for new boat construction. When the new measures were first announced, the spokesman for the Ministry said that he did not anticipate any shortage of cash; however, as the House will remember, the Prime Minister replied to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) as follows:
  "there is an unprecedented demand for grants, and we have had to have a system of priorities."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 920.]
  I now turn to the priorities that have been put in place. I doubt whether anyone would object to the fact that, in cases where someone's boat has been wrecked or lost, that should be the top priority. Priority has also been given to boats over the age of 15 years, especially when there has been a withdrawal from the fleet. The third priority relates to skippers under the age of 40 who have been putting up a substantial and specified part of the capital for the new boat.
  For many younger skippers and partnerships an increasing number of financial re-arrangements have been
  132
  made so that the skipper has the required percentage. From talking to officials in the Sea Fish Industry Authority I understand that this priority is coming under scrutiny. It would be regrettable if this disappeared without any provision being made to encourage and facilitate younger men who along with their partners want to buy their own vessel. It would be regrettable if a financial barrier were placed in the way of younger men who want to come into fishing, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us whether this priority will stay in place. If it has to go or be revised, perhaps he can tell us if there will be some means of encouraging younger men who want to skipper their own vessels.
  It is fair to say that the system used for the payment of grants and the grant level are not necessarily the best means of trying to restructure the fleet. A vessel over the age of 15 years that has been withdrawn will undoubtedly be replaced by a vessel of a much greater catching capacity. It is clear that the licensing system should take account of the need to keep the size of the fleet under control. It would be a matter for regret if the effective catching capacity were to be controlled by a limit on the amount of cash made available.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much will be made available next year. It is £7·5 million this year. If he could tell us that that amount will be increased next year, it might give some ray of hope to those who are waiting. The grants for new build should help to modernise the fleet and should help new young people coming into the industry.
  I shall now speak about fish farming. The measure before us is welcome. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, this industry has taken off in a big way in Scotland and has more potential to fulfil, particularly as we look to other possible species in farming, such as halibut and turbot. The importance of marketing will also increase and we need to make sure that our fish farmers will not be undercut by the dumping in our market of farmed products from countries such as Norway.
  I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said about the Crown Estate Commissioners. Over many centuries the Highlands and Islands of Scotland suffered from the problem of absentee landlords. The feeling there is that we have the latest instalment in that long-running saga. There is a feeling in many areas of insensitivity and lack of consultation with local authorities. In my constituency there is considerable antagonism about the level of rents. It is felt that the lower rental rates which were in force for some to time to take account of the fact that the industry was developing have not been extended to parts of Scotland, such as the Western Isles and my constituency, where the development of the industry is still much more recent than in other parts of Scotland.
  Above all, the rents must take account of the fact that in the remoter island areas the transport costs, not only for exporting the finished products but for bringing in the necessary materials and foodstuffs, place an exceptional additional burden on those engaged in fish farming. The Crown Estate Commissioners have not taken that into account nearly enough in setting the level of rent. Obviously that is outwith the scope of this debate and the Minister can do nothing about it by way of these measures. We welcome what has been given, but it would be a

  133
  tragedy if much of what has been given by the Government under this measure were taken away by the Crown Estate Commissioners in ever increasing levels of rent.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I say at the outset that I believe that all hon. Members welcome these schemes and that what I am about to say in no way diminishes my support for them. The Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 once again perpetuates an injustice against many fishermen, certainly in England and certainly the fishermen I represent. I could not help smiling wryly when the debate began with an outburst of indignation from some Scottish Opposition Members who, for the first time, although on fish farming, realised that their constituents were going to suffer in precisely the same way as my constituents who are fishermen, and fishermen in most parts of England, have suffered over the years. One only has to look at this scheme to see the measure of that injustice. For vessels under 24 m the maximum possible rate of grant in the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be 65 per cent. For all other regions it will be 50 per cent. —a differential or bonus of 15 per cent. to Scottish fishermen. For vessels over 24 m and up to 33 m, for the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland the maximum rate of grant will be 55 per cent. For other regions it will be 50 per cent., a smaller differential, but nevertheless a differential.
  Mr. Salmond: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The point that I made in the intervention earlier was that 10 years ago one might have believed that the European Commission was willing to designate the whole of Scotland as a priority area, but at present my constituency and other constituencies on the east coast of Scotland are not so designated. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he saying that the European Commission is somehow biased towards Scotland and against his constituency in England?
  Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a minute, I will come to that point. The genesis of this injustice lies in The Hague agreement of 1976. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was the Minister at the Hague meeting that drew up this agreement to give extra aid to preferential areas which were perceived by the Commission to have a vital dependence on fishing. What was never said from that day to this was how on earth those areas were chosen or on what criteria.
  With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is not good enough for him to say that this was all to do with the Commission. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) looked at Hansard of 2 November 1976, column 1214, he would see that my predecessor, Mr. John Nott, as he was then, challenged the right hon. Member for Devonport, who was making a statement about the conclusion of the meeting of the Fisheries Council in The Hague, and asked him what the consequence of this was for regions that did not have that preferential treatment, and on what basis were those regions with the preferential treatment chosen. The right hon. Member for Devonport shuffled it all off on to the Commission. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will have to look at column 1215 for that.
  134
  The basis of the rationale, or the criteria, for the preferential treatment for, in those days, the whole of Scotland—it excluded most of England—has never been explained. As the Minister said, the Hague agreement referred to northern parts of Britain, not actually to Scotland. But what was the basis for it? Can the Minister explain why the fishermen who are the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should get 15 per cent. more grant than fishermen from the other end of the country? I defy my right hon. Friend to give a logical reason for it. Is it on the basis of unemployment? If it is, I can tell him that west Cornwall has far higher unemployment. Is it based on dependence on fisheries? Both communities depend very much on fishing, and many parts of my constituency are far more dependent on fishing than is most of Scotland. There is no rational basis for this, except one: the crude political decision of the time. If my right hon. Friend knows of a better reason, I hope that he will enlighten me.
  The system is unjust, and not only in relation to this matter. It goes right the way through fishing policy. It affected limits; in my part of the country we have six-mile limits, whereas in Scotland there are 12-mile limits. It also affects the allocation of grants. I firmly believe that many Scottish fishermen stand a much better chance of getting a grant in the first place than do fishermen from other areas. In addition, of course, they get higher grants. I say good luck to them, but I believe that the system is crazy and I propose a simple answer which I think will satisfy the whole House. Let us remove the differentials and the bonus and let all our fishermen have exactly the same grant. I will maintain that that is the correct position until someone tells the House and, more importantly, the fishermen of Cornwall, why they get a lower grant than do the fishermen in parts of Scotland.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The issue here is not only the differential but the fact that so much of the money has gone to Scotland in any case. If the measure does anything, I hope that it will work better for the English industry than did the previous measure. About three quarters of the money must have gone to Scotland. Although no one begrudges the modernisation of the industry in Scotland there are aging vessels in England and there is a greater need now for modernising the English industry. That is especially so in Grimsby, where many of our vessels are 25-year-old or 35-year-old seine netter wooden vessels, which need modernisation and replacement. The base of the industry in Grimsby must be broadened. We need vessels to replace the British United Trawlers CAT class vessels which were decommissioned two years ago, which had the all-year-round, all-round Britain catching capacity that is necessary to keep the port going throughout the winter. For that, we need improved finances.
  The crucial aspect of this measure is how much money is made available to provide the grants. It appears that the sums provided will be inadequate to cope with the need for modernisation and replacement. Because of that inadequacy, an order of priorities has been established. Clearly, we need priorities, but many deserving cases do not fit within those priorities.
  In Grimsby, skipper John Hancock has a valid case for a new vessel, but the grant has been tied to the decommissioning of his old vessel. Because he will not do

  135
  that, he cannot get a grant. There must be such rationing if the sums provided are as inadequate as they are. They should be increased substantially. John Hancock is entitled to a new vessel and should have priority. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of Grimsby generally.
  Grants alone are not enough to help with the process of modernisation. They must be supplemented by loans. At the current rate of interest, it is difficult to raise the money to buy fishing vessels, which are extremely expensive these days. Our competitors in Belgium, Holland and France are provided with subsidised loans to build or replace fishing vessels. That should happen here if we are to help people to modernise the industry in the way that it needs.
  Even big firms have not been able to justify the commercial decision, at current rates of interest, to provide new vessels for the industry with the result that there has been a substantial shrinkage in Grimsby and that has meant that vessels have not been replaced. Those are the main points. The measures are unexceptionable, and necessary. The problem, and the test of the Government's good will, is the provision of the funds on the necessary scale to allow the industry to modernise — certainly in Grimsby—in the way that it must.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: Notwithstanding the existence of the River Avon Navigation Act, by which Salisbury was connected to the Solent, I want to concentrate on the fish farming scheme. The scheme gives enormous discretion to Ministers, who must decide whether something is desirable. It extends to agriculture and structural works in coastal areas and covers the breeding, rearing or cultivation of fish, and that includes shellfish and molluscs. That is very significant.
  There are about 500 fish farms in this country. More than 20 are in my constituency, and the biggest river-based fish farm in Europe is in my constituency. There are many problems associated with fish farming. Many are concerned with water abstraction and discharge control. In some cases water authorities restrict the abstraction that they allow to about 40 per cent. of the flow of a river. In my constituency one fish farm takes 70 per cent. of the flow of the river and might increase that figure. Most fish farms are much smaller than that. They would take anything from 25 tonnes of fish a year, whereas the very big fish farms take about 1,000 tonnes a year, and that is big business. I am pleased that the Government are moving towards water abstraction licensing as well as discharge control.
  Nearly all the river based sites for fish farming, particularly in the south of England are now used up. Does it make sense to produce grants for fish farms when there is considerable doubt about disease and environmental impact? My right hon. Friend the Minister may have no intention of giving grants to fish farms on rivers in the south of England, but may intend to concentrate on coastal sites. In that case, will he concentrate on salmon and possibly turbot, or will he concentrate on prawns, lobsters, freshwater crayfish and so on? We must pay more attention to fish farming, because it is such a big business.
  One aspect that particularly worries me is disease control. It is all very well being delighted at the fact that this is the fastest growing growth area in the agriculture
  136
  industry, if not in the whole economy in Scotland, but disease control is a big problem. There has been a great deal of discussion and misapprehension about the use of antibiotics. When people talk about antibiotics in general in relation to fish farming, they are probably really talking about anti-microbial compounds, not just antibiotics. There has been a great deal of emotional discussion of those issues.
  One of the things that concerns me most about disease control is that by unwittingly licensing many of the traditional low-cost compounds used in fish farming for disease control the Government or the European Community are mistakenly removing the professional discretion of vets. We must be very careful about that. Vets have a great input and their voices should be heard more than they are heard at present.
  Another aspect of the burgeoning industry of fish farming that worries me is fish movement control — the movement of fry in particular. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister before I knew that we were to debate this subject today. He will recall that I wrote to him about the regional water authorities that used to have to licence the movement of fish in advance. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now does that licensing. In fact, it is retrospective. After one has done it, one has to write and say that one has done so, rather than get permission in the first place. That does not seem to be a frightfully sensible way of carrying out fish movement and disease control. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a clear view on the national water authorities' role in fish farming and fish disease control.
  There is no doubt that fish farming is generally misunderstood. There are about 500 fish farms and about 5 million anglers. Most of the time they are at loggerheads in southern England about the same stretches of water. Much blame is heaped on fish farmers, which may not be justified. I am delighted that there is a joint effort between my right hon. Friend's Ministry, the Freshwater Biological Association, the National Environment Research Council and, indeed, the Wessex water authority to study River Avon course fishing stocks and the reasons for their decline. The report will he published early next year.
  This year the Select Committee on the Environment produced an enormous weight of evidence against fish farming, particularly with regard to environmental impact and pollution, with scarcely a peep out of the fish farming lobby to justify what it was doing in economic terms or, indeed, to answer the many questions that were quite rightly posed and to which there are answers.
  We are faced with fish farming, which is big business and big money. It also has a big environmental impact. People are worried about it. Before dishing out too many grants to river-based fish farms, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to make sure that we use this unique opportunity to get it right.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the statutory instruments in so far as they represent additional and much-needed investment in fishing and fish farming, but like other hon. Members I also find them deficient in that they do not go nearly far enough. Various major problems are unanswered. I appreciate that time for the debate is short, so I shall shortly focus on one statutory instrument, No. 1134 on fish farming. Before I do so, however, I should say

  137
  that statutory instrument No. 1135 refers to assistance to fishing vessels. I welcome the weighting of support for smaller vessels and also the European Commission's weighting for west coast vessels specifically. Before vessel owners can take advantage of the weighting, they need to get a grant in the first place. Skippers in my constituency have found it difficult to get assistance from the EC through FEOGA grants. One skipper has been turned down twice, despite the fact that, outwardly, everything about his application seemed to merit an award from the European Commission. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to get from the European Commission some explanation of why an application is turned down — in fact, it gives no explanation whatsoever. Therefore, it is difficult for a skipper to know what to do in reprocessing his application for a more favourable verdict. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to try to persuade the European Commission to be more open in the reasons behind its verdicts.
  It has been said that fish farming is a booming industry, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. It has created over 1,000 primary jobs. Added to that, other jobs have been created downstream in processing industries and fish farm services. In 1986, the value of salmon farm production was equivalent to the entire west coast commercial fish landings, which gives some idea of the importance of this new industry to the west coast.
  This year the cash value of salmon production is expected to be about £60 million and next year £100 million—equivalent to almost half the total value of the Scottish commercial fish landings. The developments in shellfish farming and the progress in connection with species such as halibut, make for an exciting new growth area. A major new economic force is emerging in the Highlands and Islands.
  The figures of 1,000 jobs and £100 million cash value are significant anywhere in Scotland, but they are particularly significant in remote peripheral areas such as the Highlands and Islands, traditionally a fragile community with an underdeveloped economy. Any Government assistance to maintain progress is welcome. I welcome the order, but its good intentions are undermined by the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners who propose to raise rents to £36 per tonne for fish farms in my constituency and to £40 per tonne for fish farms on the mainland.
  The average 1988 production of 25,000 tonnes means that receipts to the crown Estate Commissioners will he between £900,000 and £1 million from the Highlands and Islands alone.
  Under pressure, the Crown Estate Commissioners have agreed to plough back some receipts into the fish industry, but so far they have agreed to put back only about £100,000. Meanwhile it is spending about £4·3 million on the maintainence, improvement and repairs of Windsor park and other properties in London. That is not good enough. These feelings were made clear in my constituency recently by those patronisingly referred to by the commissioners as tenants.
  The fish farmers in my constituency, and in the Highlands and Islands generally, are not tenants and do not think of themselves sa such. They are not servants but adventurous and hardworking entrepreneurs. They already pay the full range of taxes that businesses are expected to pay and yet they are also taxed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The difference between the receipts
  138
  which the commissioners take from them and the investment that they put hack in constitutes the profits which are being ploughed back into London properties.
  I cannot see the justification for that. It is beyond the understanding of fish farmers in the Highlands and Islands. Can the Ministry justify fish farmers paying rents in excess of investment? Until that injustice is remedied, the statutory instruments will not do much good.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has already said that the problem calls into question the status of the Crown Estate as landlord of the fish farms in the Highlands and Islands. The role of the Crown Estate should be examined. The Government may not be willing to be so radical, but they should at least agree that the £1 million that the Crown Estate intends to extract from fish farms in the Highlands and Islands ought to be ploughed back into fish farming in that area. There is no justification for it to go anywhere else. Investment is needed in research, training and infrastructure works such as piers and roads. Unless that money is ploughed back, the statutory instruments will not do much good.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am pleased to welcome the instruments. My constituency has fishing interests in trawlers and a number of fish farms. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Milford Haven shortly after the general election and saw the increased number of trawlers plying from that port in the Celtic sea and further out.
  The trawler owners' association — the indigenous owners in Milford Haven — has recently increased the number of working trawlers to seven, and there is a possibility of two more. That is especially important in a town which has 30 per cent. unemployment.
  Recent developments by Seacon, which has just taken control of the Milford Haven Dock Company, will lead to the refurbishment of the ice-making factory at the docks, and that will also help the fishing industry.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to look again at a matter that the Ministry has considered in the past 18 months. There is worry about the flags of convenience that are used by Spanish ships in Milford Haven. The common fisheries policy in January 1985 virtually excluded Spanish ships from their traditional grounds, but after Spain's accession to the EC in January 1986 a number of licences were granted. However, although some ships register in the United Kingdom and have United Kingdom captains, the number of crew who are British or nationals of other EC states is nowhere near the 75 per cent. that the law requires. The limits are still being flouted.
  Fish farming in my constituency is centred on the river Cleddau, and I recently visited a number of farms. There are still pollution problems and I should like to know whether statutory instrument No. 1134 will cover assistance to deal with that problem.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) for reminding the House of the considerable danger that is part of the fishing industry. I associate the Government with his remarks about the late Mr. Read.

  139
  The problem raised on both sides of the House is the difficulty of being fair between the various parts of the industry. I remind hon. Members that many parts of the country where there is high unemployment may, at the same time, have very profitable fishing industries. The connection is not always easy to draw. A hinterland may have high unemployment, but a profitable fishing industry; or there may be problems in both respects. None of us find it easy to decide where extra help should go.
  I hope that the debate has convinced the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that he was wholly wrong to attack me for being anti-Scots, for it has suggested to my English friends that I have done too well by the Scots. But it is probably a good idea to be attacked by both sides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take what I have said in the spirit in which it was meant. We find it extremely difficult to draw the distinctions, and I believe that we must accept that the Commission has tried to give special help to parts of the country with special difficulties. However, I hope that no one will go away with the idea that this is anything but a very blunt instrument, and I have taken very seriously what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke of his sadness about the decommissioning grants. I merely say to him that, with the amount of money available and the arrangements that had been made, it seemed better to put the money into the restructuring of the fleet through the replacement of older boats, particularly those whose age now gives cause for real alarm on safety grounds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that we cannot ask people to receive grants for new boats when we also allow them to keep old boats.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that we have to use the grants in such a way as not to increase the capacity to catch when there is no increase in the opportunity to do so. The gentleman to whom he referred must accept that the purpose of the grants is to modernise the fleet, but not to expand it beyond the opportunities that are there for it. Otherwise, those who are already in the business will have every right to complain about the use of Government and European Community money. I do not think that that complaint was reasonable.
  We examine the problems of fish farming extremely carefully. The European Community makes the decisions, but we have to see that the requests that reach Brussels are within the terms of the arrangements. We insist that there is a discharge consent from water authorities in England and Wales, river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment at the Northern Ireland Office, where necessary. We start from the assumption that we must ensure that the fish farms that ask for help are doing their business in a way that is environmentally acceptable.
  I accept that there are different problems in different parts of the country. What obtains for rivers in the crowded south-east may not obtain for rivers in the rest of the country. The problems of marine fish farming are clearly different from those of river fish farming. We are considering the matter very carefully, and, as I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in recent correspondence, I am taking particular note of the issues that he has raised with me, in common with
  140
  neighbouring Members. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy him on those points, or else make changes that will in themselves satisfy him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the fallibility of science, and in particular the problems of dredging. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food examined those matters very carefully. It was not done quickly, and it would be unfair to call it a rapid judgment. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it took a long time: indeed, the industry complained that I took too long over it. I did so on purpose, because I wished to obtain the right answer. In order to protect the fishing interests our decision excludes dredgers from those areas to which they might most want to go. That shows the high priority we give to the fishing interests. It would be unfair to suggest that the Government have not taken into account the evidence that was given to us. However, we have to take into account the best evidence that is available. One may say that science is fallible, but surely one does not therefore say that we ought to accept any view rather than the scientific view.
  The same problem has arisen over the total allowable catch and estimating future fish stocks. We are not always right, but it is better to take the best evidence that is available than to disregard it and to say that it is so often wrong that we shall not take it seriously.
  I understand my hon. Friend's point about Dover sole being largely caught in Hastings and Rye, but I hope that he will accept that fish do not belong to any place or to anyone. They move very rapidly, and we have to try to ensure that they are shared out fairly.
  As for the points put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), we are taking action on flags of convenience. I hope that very soon he will see the alterations in our arrangements that will ensure that those ships which claim to be British ships are in fact British ships and that therefore those ships that take fish under British quotas are properly taking them. I understand the very considerable anger that is felt when it is found that fish that have been fairly shared out among members of the European Community are taken by other than British nationals.
  I shall look into the points that have been made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Crown Estate. As I am not directly responsible for it, he will not expect me to answer him directly now, but I shall take his points into account. I shall continue to discuss with the Commission the FEOGA grants and the arrangements to which he rightly drew attention—as did other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The present system gives rise to considerable difficulties. We have been seeking to encourage a new system that we believe would be better, but so far without success.
  As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I believe that it is better to try to share the £50 million than—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,

  141
  That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

  Sea Fisheries

    SEA FISHERIES
    Resolved,
    That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1136), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

    FISHERIES
    Resolved,
    That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1134), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

  Truro and St. Austell
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  11.52 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems caused by the removal of assisted area status from the travel-to-work areas of Truro and St. Austell.
  I thank the Minister for staying so late to respond to this Adjournment debate. It is, however, an important matter, not only for my own constituents in Truro and St. Austell, but for many throughout Cornwall, particularly in the far west of the county, for, above all, Cornwall's problems need to be seen and tackled together. Because we in Truro and St. Austell are set in the middle of the country our position is unique, as I shall explain, but Launceston also suffers —and as a result of our suffering the whole of Cornwall is penalised.
  The Minister may have some knowledge of our problems, having responded in the past to debates on the subject of regional development. However, familiarity will not, I trust, have bred contempt, and I have already let the Minister know that I seek some response to specific difficulties and suggestions, in addition to the general debate about the current definitions of travel-to-work areas in Cornwall.
  Above all, the feeling throughout my constituency and Cornwall is that for the sake of bureaucratic simplicity local realities have been ignored — or perhaps there is simply no real understanding of the situation.
  If the whole county had assisted area status it would stop this pointless softshoe shuffle by Cornish companies shifting across boundaries in search of the cash to survive or grow. Instead, it would give a single package to present to the outside world, which could be marketed and developed as a whole and which would work as a whole.
  Nor is assisted area status to be taken in isolation. It is bound up with development in the county, and while to many of us it is a key issue, the Minister could at least mitigate its effects by acknowledging them and acting to avert the worst anomalies and difficulties. That is why I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to ask the Minister five related questions. I hope that the people of Cornwall will receive the constructive response that they deserve.
  My first request is that the grants associated with assisted area status should be an extra sweetener to help to attract business from outside the county. My county is England's poorest, and that is why so much of it attracts special assistance. But why make it a mint with a hole? Truro and St. Austell are the only travel-to-work areas in England that are completely surrounded by assisted areas. That hole has cut off further development potential, not just for my constituency but for Cornwall as a whole. Surely the Government can see that that decision lacked logic. How can we tell people from Helston and Caniborne that their only means of communication with the rest of England is through an area where roads, water works and sewerage systems do not have the same financial assistance as their own? So we are left behind, always more expensive to tackle, so all too often put off to do another day.
  It is a flaw that the Government have studiously avoided elsewhere. What about the Birmingham travel-to-work area? It is one vast area one could say the size of an

  143
  entire county. This travel-to-work area has assisted area status, but if one breaks down the unemployment figures there one finds areas with 8·5 per cent. unemployment in Elmdon or 5·0 per cent. in Knowle. But there are not holes in Birmingham's assisted area status map. Just as I would not be able to see the logic in leaving out parts of Birmingham, I cannot see the logic of doing so in Cornwall.
  I have heard it said that it was precisely because Birmingham won this concession that areas like my own missed out. With assisted area status restricted to a defined percentage of the country, when the leafy suburbs of Birmingham were helped, civil servants were dispatched with scissors and tape to cut out other areas all over the country to make the percentages add up. If that is true, my part of Cornwall was one of the sacrifices.
  Local industry is united in its belief that Truro and St. Austell offer the rest of the county an opportunity to draw in industry from outside. English China Clays, which is the chief employer in St. Austell, acknowledges the need for St. Austell to be given the opportunity to diversify, but it knows that this cannot be done without assisted area status. Truro and St. Austell could provide the kind of facilities and attraction to make Cornwall marketable, but only with the right support.
  My predecessor, David Penhaligon, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) were among those who lobbied to put an industrial site called United Downs into the assisted area of Redruth. It was designed as the showpiece estate for Cornwall to attract business and jobs to service a wide area of west Cornwall. Instead, the stupidity of bureauracy ruled again, and United Downs is part of the Truro travel-to-work area, despite being closer to Redruth. That project was originally backed financially by this Government, but strangled even as it was being built in 1984, all thanks to a pen mark on a map rather than the logic of local knowledge.
  Furniss Biscuits is a company with a long history that is based in Truro, but it is now being forced to move unnecessarily into Redruth if it is to receive the grants essential for its growth. It is a firm that provides bread-winning jobs for families in my constituency, not the part-time low-paid work that hides the real poverty of many in Cornwall from the official statistics. Do the Government seriously believe that by forcing a local manufacturer to pay the costs of moving simply to keep in business it will help the local economy?
  My second request gives the Minister an opportunity to give some specific constructive assistance. Our local authorities are not sitting around waiting for money to be restored; instead, they have produced a draft application to the national programme for community interest, which will be judged by the European Commission later this year. What they need from the Government is support for their draft and a commitment to push the application through. It is a chance to bring some much needed money to help with the infrastructure of Cornwall, and an opportunity to get that money from Europe. It will give continuity and consistency to Cornwall's development.
  I seek a particular commitment from the Minister that will allow funding to areas and projects serving those with assisted area status, such as the link between the A30 and Falmouth. This would be a step towards acknowledging
  144
  the fact that travel-to-work areas are not the be all and end all of the needs of a community, and would be a real gesture of support for our needs.
  I should like to make a special plea that the national programme of community interest does not go the way of the article 15 application, for the development of our tourism, and disappear into the dark depths of the Treasury, losing all sight of deadlines from one year to the next, on the flimsy excuse of concern about local government expenditure. My county is well known for keeping within its means. It is now applying to Europe, but still the Government manage to block any move forward.
  The Government can show signs of encouragement by helping our county with this application. However, until we have an improvement in roads through Truro and St. Austell the whole of south Cornwall will suffer. Without decent transport, communications, amenities and industrial estates throughout Cornwall, too much of Cornwall will stagnate in isolation. Those projects will develop only if controls on investment are relaxed. We are not a high spending area; our local authorities have historically been cautious in their spending. Greater freedom would not incur wild extravagance, but more houses and less homelessness, more jobs, and less joblessness. We cannot at present even get help to build a decent city hall in our City of Truro.
  Today we saw the first planes flying in from Portsmouth to the new STOL port in the City of London. All Cornwall is keen to realise its potential at RAF St. Mawgan for increased freight transportation and the expansion of operations there by Bryman Airways. It is something that would be welcomed by everyone. Local industries are keen to have customs facilities there, but it is not covered by assisted area status and will, therefore, receive little support. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of financial support for such development. I am sure that that would be a sign of support and encouragement to industries interested in moving into the county.
  My third request is for increased funding for English Estates. I am told that English Estates finds it easier to let its units in Cornwall than in any other county in England—not surprising, perhaps, since it is virtually alone in providing such facilities. At this moment in the whole of the county of Cornwall there is only one site of 10,000 sq ft available. is that any way to encourage industry to move to Cornwall when we have nothing to offer but the land and the sky? If the Minister can tell me of any manufacturers who can move to Cornwall and build their own sites, I will write to them tomorrow inviting them to our county. However, I do not believe that he can do so.
  The Department of Trade and Industry this year gave English Estates £3 million for the entire south-west region to be spent only in assisted areas. Of that, £2·35 million went to Cornwall, the rest to Plymouth. Next year, of the £2·4 million to be given for the south-west region, only £400,000 will be spent in Cornwall. The result is that any momentum that has been built up in Cornwall will now be lost by a massive reduction in building of industrial sites in the area, despite the fact that there is proven demand. Again, Truro and St. Austell have been struck off the development map. We do not have any industrial units to offer, and English Estates is ruled out of investing with us. I believe that makes no sense for our county and it certainly does not make sense for Truro and St. Austell.

  145
  My fourth request is for an assurance that the Plymouth regional development office will not be relocated at Bristol. I, like the Minister, appreciate that rumours such as that are often unfounded, but I have no hesitation in giving the Government the opportunity to dispel those rumours and reassure local businesses and councillors.
  My fifth and final request is for a statement on the recent rumours regarding the whole shake-up of regional development in this country. I hope that the Minister will use this request to quell any fears of industries thinking of investing in areas of regional development and assure them that they will continue to receive assistance.
  While preparing for this debate I read through the various attempts by hon. Members and hon. Friends to draw the Government's attention to the acute need for a change in the definition of areas eligible for assistance. I have to say I was rather surprised by the similarity of ministerial responses to speeches on this issue, each lacking any helpful response. As a result, I contacted the Minister's office last Friday with an outline of my speech in the hope that tonight we would receive some specific replies. I did that because the people of Cornwall are tired of the usual ministerial responses. They are tired of trying to build up industry in the area only to be beaten back by the Government's regional policy. The Cornish people, Cornish industry and local government deserve a decent reply.
  12.4 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) for the courtesies that he has observed in signalling some of the questions that he wished to raise this evening. I shall do my best to deal with them in the terms in which he raised them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which he has presented his case. Given the candour of his delivery, I am sure that he would expect me to respond in a similar manner. I shall try to respond with equal courtesy and candour.
  The hon. Gentleman has assembled a collection of facts and figures in support of his case for Government action to help those parts of his constituency which do not benefit from assisted area status. In so doing he would have the House believe that the areas concerned are suffering from a level of disadvantage on a par with that found in some of our most deprived areas. When we examine the hard data we find that that is not so. While neither I nor he would wish to minimise the problem of unemployment, neither St. Austell nor Truro has anything like the rate of unemployment to be found in other parts of the country. Indeed, Truro, in particular, gives a clear impression of prosperity, benefiting from its role as the principal commercial centre of that part of Cornwall, and from the many thousands of visitors each year, generating economic activity on a scale which would be the envy of many other parts of Britain.
  The hon. Gentleman's remarks belie the fact that in many ways the Government are doing a great deal to assist areas such as his. I shall come back to this in a moment. First, a few words about the question of assisted area status, which is at the heart of the hon. Member's remarks. He will know, of course, that several other issues follow from that of status.
  The assisted areas map was re-drawn in November 1984, and I acknowledge that, as a result. the travel-to-
  146
  work areas of Truro and St. Austell lost their assisted area status. Quite simply, the two travel-to-work areas did not meet the criteria which were established for assisted area designation. Our objective in revising the assisted areas was to ensure that the areas of greatest need received assistance. With this in mind we looked at a variety of objective indicators. Apart from the immediate unemployment level we considered industrial and occupational structure, for example, with a view to determining the areas where dependence on declining traditional industries was the greatest problem. Levels of long-term unemployment were, of course, a key consideration, and distance from main markets was taken into account. Having considered these factors we could not, in the circumstances, justify including Truro and St. Austell, and as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, this meant that these areas were no longer eligible for other forms of assistance from for example, the European regional development fund.
  I must make it plain that my Department has no plans at present to review the coverage of the assisted areas map. I sympathise with those areas which lost assisted area status in 1984, but piecemeal changes in respect of individual travel-to-work areas would undermine the stability in the map needed for firms to be able to make sensible investment decisions. I recognise that the relative positions of travel-to-work areas have changed since the 1984 review but, based on the most recent figures — for September 1987 — the Truro TTWA's unemployment rate, 9·6 per cent. is below the average for Great Britain at 11·3 per cent., and well below the average for intermediate areas at 14·1 per cent. St. Austell's rate of 13·2 per cent., which is higher than Truro's, is nevertheless also below the intermediate area average. Indeed the unemployment rates of both TTWAs are lower than they were when the assisted areas map was altered in November 1984. Truro's rate, in particular, has shown a marked decrease —from 12·2 per cent. in November 1984 to 9·6 per cent. in September 1987. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham. The people of Birmingham would be delighted if they could report similar figures.
  Truro's claim to assisted area status on unemployment grounds can hardly be described as a strong one. As I am sure the hon. Member will acknowledge, there are many non-assisted areas which suffer from levels of unemployment considerably in excess of both Truro's and St. Austell's rates.
  I have spoken at some length about the unemployment level because, although one has to bear in mind a number of criteria when considering status, prime among them—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—must be the level of unemployment, which is a measure of social and economic activity, and the level of long-term unemployment. We try to regard them as the heart of the consideration.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say a few words about the way in which the Government's policies are having an impact on the unemployment and other problems he has described. We are creating an economic climate which is helping industry and commerce increase the national production of wealth. We are in our seventh year of growth at an annual rate approaching 3 per cent. Investment was at a record level in 1986.
  Since 1980, the United Kingdom has grown faster, on average, than any other major European Community country and our productivity growth since 1979 has been

  147
  better than in any major industrial country — including Japan. In the three months to July 1987, output per head was nearly 48 per cent. up on the 1980 level. At the same time inflation has been substantially reduced — last year it was at its lowest level for almost 20 years.
  We are encouraging the growth of the enterprise culture through lower taxes and the removal of price and dividend controls. We have introduced a whole range of measures to improve the responsiveness of commerce and industry through the restoration of incentives and the removal of unnecessary regulation and by enlarging the scope for enterprise through privatisation. We are emphasising to industry the importance of education and training. These are the steps we are taking to produce a climate which promotes enterprise and prosperity. They are at the heart of my Department's programmes.
  There is a range of financial and practical support designed to help industry develop its competitive strengths and take advantage of the resulting opportunities. Support of this kind is available nationally and there is no reason why companies in the hon. Member's constituency should not benefit. There are subsidised consultancy services dealing with design, quality and marketing, which aim to introduce small and medium-sized firms to best practice and encourage them to make use of outside specialist advice by demonstrating the benefits of such advice. Information, advice and support for exporters is the business of the British Overseas Trade Board and the assistance given by the board is available throughout the country.
  If the hon. Gentleman doubts the efficacy of such measures, I can only say that, during the past three or four years, I have seen many vivid examples of companies' prospects being changed by the implementation of the highest quality advice on design, quality and marketing. If it would be helpful, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to bring a delegation from his chamber of commerce to my Office to discuss these matters, which I have mentioned as being the main part of our agenda. I have found that through promotion of these measures, it is possible to help some regions and travel-to-work areas.
  The success of the Government's policies in tackling unemployment is apparent in all regions of the country. Unemployment is now falling throughout Great Britain. In Truro and St. Austell, as elsewhere, people are benefiting from the wide range of employment, training and enterprise schemes run by the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission. And there are local enterprise agencies in St. Austell and in Camborne, which covers the Truro area. I understand that last year the West Cornwall enterprise agency assisted in the start-up of 87 new businesses and that it carried out, on average, 65 business advice consultations each month. I believe it has also set up a loan fund aided by RTZ plc with the aim of supporting small business development by making loans available to new or existing businesses for either capital or working expenditure. I am sure that that will be most beneficial in helping to extend further the enterprise culture in the area.
  As the hon. Member will acknowledge. a large part of his constituency has been classified as a rural development area. This is a designated priority area drawn up by the Development Commission on the basis of a number of criteria, including unemployment rates, age structures,
  148
  access to services and so on. The Development Commission concentrates its efforts in these rural development areas with the aim of increasing the number and range of job opportunities in the countryside. Its main programmes include the provision of small workshops and support for small businesses through advice, finance and training provided through its agency COSIRA. The commission also provides some support for rural services such as transport and housing and encourages community activity and self-help. In the Truro area the commission has funded 53 units, providing 73,000 sq ft of factory space, which accounts for nearly 300 job opportunities.
  In the farming and rural enterprise package announced earlier this year, the Government provide an extra £1 million to enable the Development Commission to carry forward an innovative package of measures to stimulate new job opportunities in the countryside and encourage the development and diversification of the rural economy. One of these initiatives is the private sector partnership scheme, ACCORD — assistance for co-ordinated rural development — launched in June. Its aim is to attract £2·50 of private money for every £1 from the commission. I am sure the hon. Member will recognise the value of these developments.
  The Government also recognise that the Truro and St. Austell areas, along with many other parts of Cornwall, contain significant amounts of derelict land. Because of this, both areas were designated, in 1985, as derelict land clearance areas, thus restoring the availability of derelict land grants at the highest rates. Reclamation schemes carried out by local authorities in such areas are eligible for derelict land grant at the rate of 100 per cent. of approved costs; 80 per cent. is payable for non-local authority schemes. These are the same rates that apply to schemes located in assisted areas.
  I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the valuable reclamation work being done by Carrick and Restormel councils with the assistance of derelict land grant. Carrick council, in particular, has been active in reclaiming derelict land for a variety of uses, including industry and public open space and has a large scheme at Scorrier in the derelict land programme for the current financial year. There has been less activity in Restormel so far, but discussions are now under way about the possible use of derelict land grant to reclaim some former china clay workings in the St. Austell area. The Government are prepared to respond positively to the acknowledged problems associated with dereliction.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's willingness to look beyond the boundaries of his own constituency, and I make it clear that I am well aware of the value of English Estates' factory building in the areas surrounding his own constituency. While my Department has this year increased the allocation of funds to English Estates, there is a very high level of demand on its resources in assisted areas throughout the country as the economy continues to grow. It is, rightly, for the board of English Estates to determine how money allocated in the south-west is best spent on viable projects that will do most to stimulate new and increased business activity which alone can provide secure jobs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has kept a close eye on the role of English Estates.
  During the current financial year, English Estates will spend about £2 million in west Cornwall. The Truro office will continue its efforts to identify suitable sites for future

  149
  development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands and supports the need for new and better sites, for future development. I hope that he will join us in using his best endeavours with local authorities in his constituency to ensure that sufficient sites of the right quality will be available, and that they will show enlightened flexibility in their approach to planning consents, so that the needs of industry and commerce can be met.
  Despite the hon. Gentleman's inclination to point up the disadvantages as he sees them of the absence of assisted area status, there has, nevertheless, been some very recent welcome news on the investment front. He will, for example, be delighted that Clear Water Fine Foods of Nova Scotia, the new owners of Channel Foods, is to invest £3 million in the Truro company and has plans to recruit an extra 40 workers following a move to new premises in the Newnham industrial estate. He will also be aware that St. Austell-based Partech Ltd., which employs 20 people in the manufacture of quality control monitoring equipment, has announced plans to double its work force within the next 18 months.
  This sort of activity is evidence, if any were needed, of the confidence in the local area brought about by the Government's prudent management of the economy and the praiseworthy reactions of local employers in the hon.
  150
  Gentleman's area to the new breeze. The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the organisation of the south-west regional office. There are no plans to close the Plymouth office, but good management requires that the tasks and resources are continually monitored. The change was made to give the best possible service to those eligible for regional development grant while maintaining the quality of all the other services provided from Bristol.
  It is no longer possible to justify a free-standing regional selective assistance unit in Plymouth. Bristol-based staff handle the full range of the Department's services and instruments across the whole region, with no complaints from the private sector.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the A30. Although it is a matter for the Department of Transport, I recognise that this road is a vital communications link for industry and commerce in Cornwall, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Government have a list of impressive improvements made, under construction and planned. These together with the improvements in air communications, not least to the London docklands airport, are doing much to reduce the sense of distance of Cornwall from the main market places of Britain.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Institute of Marine Biochemistry
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether, in the light of falling land values in Aberdeen and the revised upward costings of both phase I and II of adapting the Scottish Marine Biological Association laboratory at Oban, he will advise the Natural Environment Research Council to review its plans to close the Institute of Marine Biochemistry in Aberdeen and transfer its staff to the Oban laboratory;

  (2) if he will publish the latest estimate of (a) the anticipated building costs consequent upon the removal of work from the Institute of Marine Biochemistry in Aberdeen to the Scottish Marine Biological Association laboratory at Oban, (b) the anticipated receipts from the sale of the Institute of Marine Biochemistry building and (c) the costs of the transfer of mobile staff to Oban and severance payments for non-mobile staff; and if he will itemise how the Natural Environmental Research Council has arrived at these estimates.

  Mr. Jackson
  In an earlier reply, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) explained that there were strong scientific motives for the move of the Institute of Marine Biochemistry (IMB) to the Scottish Marine Biological association's Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory (DML) at Oban (Official Report, 24 November 1986, column 35). The scientific case has not altered, and although certain costs have increased, the substantial recurrent financial benefits resulting from the move will still offset the initial costs within five years. My right hon. Friend has thus no reason to advise the Natural Environmental Research council to review its plans in respect of the closure of the IMB and the transfer of its staff to Oban.

  The cost of the new building at DML, Oban is within the estimates, and is nearing completion. The cost of necessary alterations to existing buildings will be above the original forecasts, but are still subject to contractural negotiations. A selling price for the IMB building in Aberdeen has been agreed with a puchaser and is in line with the previous estimate, but is still commercially sensitive.

  The cost of transfers has fallen to £70,000, while that of severance payments has increase to £190,000, in the first years and £54,000 thereafter, because more staff have decided to leave IMB than previously estimated. These additional costs will be offset by greater savings in salary costs at Oban. The estimate of transfer and severance costs are now based on the known circumstances of individual staff members.

  School Leavers (Knowsley)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the
  2
  number of school leavers from the borough of Knowsley attending full-time degree courses at university in each year from 1976 to 1986; and if he will express these figures as a proportion of the number of students in secondary education in the borough of Knowsley for each of these years.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information in the form requested is not available. The table below covers all students who where in receipt of a mandatory or a full value discretionary award from the Knowsley local education authority and who are estimated to have been on first degree courses at university excluding teacher training. The table also relates the numbers of such students newly taking up an award to an average of the 18 and 19 year old population in Knowsley.

  Knowsley local education authority mandatory and estimated full-value discretionary awards to students on first degree courses at university (excluding teacher training)

  Academic Years2

  All award-holders

  of which New award-holders

  New award-holders per 1,0001population

  1977–78

  420

  140

  39

  1978–79

  453

  167

  46

  1979–80

  475

  171

  50

  1980–81

  474

  141

  40

  1981–82

  442

  130

  37

  1982–83

  414

  115

  32

  1983–84

  387

  109

  33

  1984–85

  330

  85

  26

  1985–86

  313

  102

  32

  1Per 1,000 of the average of the 18 and 19 year old population.

  2Comparable figures are not available for years before 1977–78.

  Contract Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what number and percentage of (a) contract research staff and (b) contract academic staff progressed to permanent positions in institutions governed by the University Grants Commission over each of the past 10 academic years, indicating the total number and the percentage that they represented of such contract staff at each of the institutions.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state in the Official Report the number of (a) contract research staff and (b) contract academic staff at present employed in institutions covered by the University Grants Commission, indicating the annual growth over the past 10 academic years as a total number and as a percentage of the total research and academic staff at each institution and as a total of all institutions.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available in the form requested. However a recent study on "Contract Researchers in Universities" conducted by the Advisory Board on the Research Councils found the following growth in contract research staff at all UK universities:
  3

  Year

  Number of contract staff

  Number of contract research staff as a percentage of all full-time academic staff (%)

  1976

  6,010

  15

  1977

  6,084

  15

  1978

  6,615

  16

  1979

  7,469

  17

  1980

  8,005

  18

  1981

  8,223

  19

  1982

  8,275

  22

  1983

  9,684

  22

  1984

  10,249

  23

  Medical Training
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the ratio of teaching medical doctors and medical students for university medical departments; and what were the comparable figures for 1979;

  (2) what is the ratio between teaching medical personnel and medical students for each year since 1973 in Scottish universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available figures cover full-time academic staff in clinical medical departments, employed by universities. The table below shows the ratio of full-time equivalent student load to such staff who are wholly university-financed. The figures do not take account of the teaching contribution of other members of clinical departments who are paid wholly or partly from DHSS or other sources of funds. They include staff engaged in teaching, teaching and research and research only.

  Ratio of full-time equivalent student load to full-time academic staff wholly financed from general university funds.

  Clinical medical departments only

  Academic year beginning

  GB Universities

  Scottish Universities

  1973

  5·4

  4·6

  1974

  5·5

  4·7

  1975

  5·6

  4·8

  1976

  5·4

  4·5

  1977

  5·4

  4·4

  1978

  5·4

  4·4

  1979

  5·3

  4·1

  1980

  5·6

  4·4

  1981

  5·9

  4·7

  1982

  6·6

  5·6

  1983

  6·6

  5·6

  1984

  6·9

  6·2

  1985

  6·9

  7·1

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last had discussions wth university authorities concerned with the university teaching and training of medical doctors.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent meetings with university interests at which a range of matters, which may inculude medical education, are discussed.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what policies and funds for the maintenance and progress of medical university training Her Majesty's Government have applied and provided for each year since 1979.
  4
  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's policy for medical education was recently set out in a joint note of guidance to the universities and the health authorities issued earlier this year, a copy of which is in the Library. Financial provision for undergraduate medical education is made through recurrent grants to the universities on the advice of the University Grants Committee and, in respect of teaching hospitals, through the National Health Service. In neither case is provision for the training of doctors specifically identified.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of new medical students in Scottish universities for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of full-time new entrant undergraduates to Scottish universities studying pre-clinical and clinical medicine in each year was as follows:

  Number

  1975

  672

  1976

  651

  1977

  695

  1978

  685

  1979

  722

  1980

  717

  1981

  728

  1982

  773

  1983

  780

  1984

  791

  1985

  781

  1986

  —1

  1 not yet available.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the provision of funds for medical equipment and laboratories in the Scottish universities for the purposes of medical teaching and training, for each year since 1973.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provision for medical education is not separately identified in the equipment grants made to universities.

  Calderdale
  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if an early response will be given to Calderdale council's request for additional capital allocation to meet his Department's requirements imposed following publication of the report by the Commission for Racial Equality on education in Calderdale.

  Mr. Dunn
  Calderdale's bid for a capital allocation for 1988–89 has not yet been received. When it is received we will give careful consideration to the particular issues raised by the report of the Commission for Racial Equality. The Department aims to notify authorities of their allocations around Christmas.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking during the period of falling school rolls to reduce the pupil-teacher ratios in state schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  Total pupil numbers in maintained schools in England continue to fall until 1991, although primary pupil numbers have been rising since 1985. The Government's expenditure plans already provide for the
  5
  overall pupil to teacher ratio, standing in 1986 at its lowest ever level of 17.6:1, to continue to improve up to 1990. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for schools and teachers in Scotland.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the average pupil-teacher ratios in state schools in the years 1979 and 1986, respectively.

  Mr. Dunn
  The average overall pupil-teacher ratios in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England were as follows:

  Pupil-teacher ratios

  January 1979

  18·9

  January 1986

  17·6

  Information in respect of Wales and Scotland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the average pupil-teacher ratios in schools in the independent sector.

  Mr. Dunn
  The average pupil-teacher ratio in independent schools in England in January 1986 was 11·3. Information in respect of Wales and Scotland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland respectively.

  Children (Special Needs)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the proposed tests for 11 to 14-year-old schoolchildren will take into account the problems of children with special needs.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. The Government's proposals for a national curriculum in England and Wales envisage that, for a pupil with a statement of special need under the Education Act 1981, that statement should specify any modifications to the statutory requirements for attainment targets, programmes of study and arrangements for assessment and testing during each key educational stage, that would be appropriate for that child. The regulations governing each of the foundation subjects would also define any circumstances in which those requirements might be modified, for example for pupils with severe language difficulties. The respective subject working groups and the task group on assessment and testing have been asked to pay attention to these issues, and generally to the range of pupils' abilities, when framing their recommendations. In these ways children will be able to enjoy the maximum benefit from the national curriculum while due account is taken of their special needs.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will be taking to ensure that children with special needs will be protected against discrimination in the event of schools being allowed to opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is not our intention that the operation of our policy on grant-maintained schools should in any way prejudice the position of children with special educational needs. The admission policies of all grant-maintained schools will require the approval of my right hon. Friend.

  National Curriculum
  Dr. Glyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much time in the new national curriculum will be allocated for home economics; what steps he proposes to take to increase technological training in schools to equip school leavers for jobs in modern industry; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government's consultation document on the national curriculum does not envisage that home economics will be a foundation subject in the terms of the proposed legislation. However, we expect that some elements of home economics will be taught through the foundation subjects, particularly science, technology and art. Schools will be free additionally to devote to home economics some of the time—the equivalent of about one day a week—which will not be required for foundation subjects. My right hon. Friend does not intend to prescribe in legislation how much time should be allocated to subjects within the national curriculum. The Government's proposals for a national curriculum, including the establishment of technology as a foundation subject, will ensure that all pupils receive a relevant and practical curriculum which equips them for working life.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the visit to Liverpool on Wednesday 21 October of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  Mr. Dunn
  My noble Friend addressed the annual general meeting of the Merseyside Council for Voluntary Service. In the afternoon, as the guest of the local education authority, she visited Millbrook college and South Mersey college, looking in particular at provision for special needs and at open learning. My noble Friend found her visit both stimulating and informative.

  University Academic Staff
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to bring forward proposals to abolish tenure for university academic staff; and whether these proposals will contain provisions to guarantee academic freedom.

  Mr. Jackson
  Our proposals to legislate on academic tenure will be part of the major education reform Bill which we shall be introducing shortly. It is our intention to bring forward the relevant provisions when the Bill is introduced. The Government recognise the importance of maintaining academic freedom, and the provisions will be framed with that objective in mind.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many polytechnic staff are represented on each of the research councils and their constituent committees, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Council

  Constituent committees

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Nil

  Nil

  Economic and Social Research Council

  1

  3

  7

  Council

  Constituent committees

  Medical Research Council

  Nil

  Nil

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Nil

  2

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  1

  23

  Applied Research
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of applied research is undertaken in the polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available statistics do not distinguish between applied and other research undertaken in polytechnics, nor do they admit a direct comparison with the amount of publicly funded research undertaken elsewhere.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of his Department's earmarked major capital expenditure has been (a) allocated to local education authorities and (b) spent in each of the polytechnics in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  In making capital allocations to local education authorities under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 my right hon. Friend has not used his power to earmark parts of allocations for projects of regional or national importance. Local education authorities have therefore been free to spend their allocations as they wished.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much capital expenditure, other than his department's allocated major capital, has been spent by local education authorities in each of the polytechnics in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to consult the public at any stage about the new national response plan for nuclear accidents.

  The Prime Minister
  I announced the main features of the plan on 30 June. More detailed proposals for implementing a national radiation incident monitoring network will be published in due course.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister whether she proposes to publish the Cabinet Office review of existing emergency plans and procedures for major nuclear accidents in the light of experience of the Chernobyl accident, referred to in her statement of 18 December 1986.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the practice to publish internal Cabinet Office working documents.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister what representations she has received calling for a public inquiry into the British official response to the Chernobyl nuclear accident and what response she has made.

  The Prime Minister
  Apart from the hon. Gentleman's letter of 26 August 1986, to which I replied on 28 October 8
  1986, I have received two requests for a public inquiry in letters dated 30 June 1986 and 2 September 1987 from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). In my replies I explained why an inquiry of the kind he suggested would not be justified.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government intend to observe the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection for the protection of the public in the event of major radiation accidents.

  The Prime Minister
  The National Radiological Protection Board has a statutory duty to advise the Government on radiation dose limits. In its publication ERL 2, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, it gives criteria for limiting doses to the public in the event of accidental exposure to radiation. This guidance is generally consistent with that given in the relevant International Commission on Radiological Protection publication—Publication 40—and in some cases is more stringent.

  The ICRP is at present reconsidering its recommendations in respect of risk estimates. The Government will consider, in due course, any revised advice from the NRPB in the light of ICRP deliberations.

  Guatemala Accord
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to call upon President Reagan to accept the II Esquipulas agreement (Guatemala accord).

  The Prime Minister
  The United States Administration are well aware of our support for the Guatemala agreement.

  World Peace
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if, in order to help the search for world peace, she will approach European Community Governments and Commonwealth nations, in order to seek to introduce more acceptable international rules protecting the independence, self-determination and security of nations against the aggression of powerful neighbours and superpowers.

  The Prime Minister
  Acceptable international rules to protect peace and stability already exist, for instance in the United Nations Charter.

  Namibia
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what recent talks she has had with other Heads of Government involved in the arrangements for the independence of Namibia.

  The Prime Minister
  Namibia was discussed briefly at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Vancouver. I refer the hon. Member to the statement on Southern Africa, issued by the Heads of Government, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Angola
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what information has she recently received about incursions of South African troops into Angola; and if she will make a statement.
  9
  The Prime Minister
  In a statement on 3 October the South African Defence Minister confirmed that there was a South African military presence in Angola. We have made clear to the South African Government, both before and since that statement, that we condemn cross-border violations from whatever quarter. We consider that the problems of the region should be solved peacefully by negotiation.

  National School for Public Administration
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to create a national school for public administration to which local government employees should have access.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Thursday 22 October at column 845. Opportunities already exist for local government employees to undertake training jointly with civil servants, for example through the Cabinet Office's top management programme, or courses run by the Civil Service College.

  South Africa
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister how many of the countries attending the Commonwealth meeting recently held at Vancouver made proposals for, or supported, the selective sanctions against the South African Government, and if she will list them.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 22 October, columns 921–22.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if she discussed the situation in South Africa during her recent contacts with the German Chancellor and with the French Prime Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not my practice to disclose the details of my discussions with other heads of state.

  Voting
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to seek to increase voting during general and local elections and to reduce the number of abstentions.

  The Prime Minister
  It is up to each elector to decide whether or not to vote. The Government are committed to ensuring that the arrangements for elections enable electors to exercise their right to vote. We have extended the right to vote in parliamentary, European Parliament and local government elections to holidaymakers and others unable to vote in person.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if she will urgently seek the postponement of the application of poll tax on Scotland and instruct a review of similar proposals for England and Wales with the same objective.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Open Government
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking as regards open government; and what areas have been given first priority for such purposes.
  10
  The Prime Minister
  It remains the Government's policy that all Departments should make publicly available as much information as possible whilst preserving the confidentiality essential to the effective working of government.

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister how many Commonwealth countries' representatives attended the recent meeting in Vancouver.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Forty-five countries were represented at Vancouver, 37 at Head of Government. level.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister (1) what was the number of people who were members of the British delegation, including the supporting staff, during the Commonwealth meetings of Heads of Government held at London, Lusaka, Melbourne, New Delhi, Bahamas and Vancouver, respectively;

  (2) what was the number of people serving the press and public relations requirements of the British delegations at the Commonwealth conferences at London, Lusaka, Melbourne, New Delhi, Bahamas and Vancouver respectively;

  (3) if she will list the names of the persons serving the press and public relation requirements of Her Majesty's Government at the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver;

  (4) if she will list the members of the British delegation and all their supporting staff who attended the Vancouver meeting of the Commonwealth.

  The Prime Minister
  The numbers of the official delegation, including press officials, together with those of the accompanying support staff during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings concerned were as follows:

  Official delegation

  Support staff

  London 1977

  22

  17

  Lusaka 1979

  14

  40

  Melbourne 1981

  15

  42

  New Delhi 1983

  16

  29

  The Bahamas 1985

  13

  36

  Vancouver 1987

  15

  38

  The figures for support staff include security personnel and other technical staff. They take account of the fact that some meetings were held in venues other than capitals or where our residential diplomatic mission was small. They do not include personal protection officers. It would not be appropriate to list the names and responsibilities of individual members of the delegations.

  Film Finances Ltd.
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Prime Minister is she will dismiss the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), for failing to investigate the affairs of Film Finances Ltd. after Mr. Justice Knox found that there was a prima facie evidence of crime under the Companies Act.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Fraud
  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Prime Minister (1) if she will instruct Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate alleged fraud under the Companies Acts when hon. Members of Parliament send them evidence;

  (2) if she will instruct Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate alleged fraud under the Companies Act when High Court judges find that there is prima facie evidence of such fraud.

  The Prime Minister
  Decisions on Companies Act investigations are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and not for me.

  Governmental Messages
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister whether it is normal practice for messages from Her Majesty's Government to Presidents of other nations to come from the Prime Minister or from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  The Prime Minister
  This is judged on the circumstances of each case and the nature of the message.

  Mr. Frank Larsen and others
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Prime Minister in what capacity (a) Mr. John Farmer, (b) Mr. Frank Larsen, (c) Mr. Dennis Evans, (d) Mr. John Larsen, (e) Mr. Jonathan Wheatley, (f) Mr. Hans Christian Dahl, (g) Mr. Johann Neimoller, (h) Mr. Viggo Oerbale, (i) Mr. Gerard Horeau, and (j) Mr. Pierre Ferrari are, or have been, employed by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Friday 23 October at columns 1095–96.

  Intergovernmental Organisations
  Mr. George Foulkes
  asked the Prime Minister, if she will list all the intergovernmental organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, giving for each one which Department has primary responsibility, which other Departments are involved, and in what ways, and whether Her Majesty's Government has a permanent diplomatic mission at the relevant organisation's headquarters.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 21 October, c. 734]: A list of international organisations for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for 1987–88 was published in class II, vote 2, sections A and B, and vote 5, section C, of the Supply Estimates. A list of other international organisations to which the United Kingdom subscribes for 1987–88 will be found in the appropriate Supply Estimates of the relevant Government Departments. Copies of all these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  We have permanent diplomatic missions at the following:

  Conference on Disarmament (Geneva)

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) (Vienna)

  Council of Europe (Strasbourg)

  European Community (Brussels)

  International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna)

  12

  International Civil Aviation Organisation (Montreal)

  IMF-IBRD (Washington)

  North Atlantic Council (NATO) (Brussels)

  OECD (Paris)

  United Nations (Geneva)

  United Nations (New York)

  United Nations (Vienna)

  MBFR (Vienna)

  United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (Nairobi)

  United Nations Environment Programme (Nairobi)

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (Vienna) Asian Development Bank (Manila)

  Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (Rome)

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Skimmed Milk Powder
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the next Council meeting the export of radioactive skimmed milk powder from Germany to Ghana as part of the European Economic Community policy of humanitarian food aid; and if he will seek to establish whether the skimmed milk powder came from Eastern Europe.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Two separate consignments of milk powder have recently been received in Ghana, one from Czechoslovakia and one from the European Community. I have no information on the former.

  The EC food aid consignment consisted of 750 tonnes from the Federal Republic of Germany. Results of three tests carried out by and on behalf of the European Commission indicated that the consignment was well within the permitted safety limits for radioactivity in milk powder. However, in view of Ghanaian claims to the contrary, the Commission has agreed with the Ghanaian Government that a further independent test be undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna. The outcome of this test is not yet available. I have no present plans to raise this in the Council of Ministers.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to give approval for the ordering of a new vessel for the St. Helena service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 21 October at column 747.

ENERGY

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to his departmental equal opportunities officer for equal opportunities duties, (b) the other duties carried out by the departmental equal opportunities officer, (c) the proportion and amount of the departmental budget allocated to equal opportunities work, (d) the number of occasions when the departmental equal opportunities officer meets with equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, and (e) the guidelines issued to departmental training officers and

  13
  equal opportunities officers to promote section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act; and what action has been taken to facilitate job share, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. Parkinson
  No separate working time or proportion of departmental budget is allocated to the equal opportunities officer in my Department for equal opportunities duties.

  The equal opportunities officer in my Department is the head of the branch dealing with personnel matters. He is responsible for the recruitment and career management of staff, pay and conditions of service, welfare and training.

  The equal opportunities officer and his deputy meet with those from other Departments on many occasions, both formal and informal, throughout the year.

  Cabinet Office guidelines on training, in accordance with section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act, have been issued to the equal opportunities officer in my Department and to the training section for which he is responsible.

  Attention of all staff has been drawn to my Department's aim to expand opportunities for part-time work and job sharing and every effort is made to meet individuals' wishes.

  Maternity leave, in accordance with Civil Service-wide provisions, is granted to women in my Department. While my Department has no authority to grant paternity leave, requests for special leave in cases of domestic of family difficulty are considered as sympathetically as possible.

  Oil Exports
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will reconsider the ban on oil exports to Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my noble Friend the then Minister of State for Energy on 8 February 1982, at column 249 of the Official Report.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General (1) what policy the Crown Prosecution Service has developed in respect of applications for Prosecution costs;

  (2) what policy the Crown Prosecution Service has developed in respect of the Prosecution of petty offences;

  (3) what policy the Crown Prosecution Service has developed in respect of breach proceedings;

  (4) what policy the Crown Prosecution Service has developed in respect of supplying of information to the probation service;

  (5) what at the latest date available, was the establishment of lawyers, lawyers' clerks and administrators in each of the 31 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service;

  (6) what is the estimated annual cost of employing agent lawyers to cover shortages in Crown Prosecution staffing.

  The Attorney-General
  Because of recent problems with the printing and distribution of the Order Paper, I have only been made aware of these questions this afternoon. I will reply to the hon. Member when the relevant information has been obtained.

  Salmon Poaching
  Mr. Onslow
  asked the Attorney-General what guidance the Lord Chancellor has sent to magistrates in England and Wales on sentencing policy for offenders convicted of salmon poaching since the passing of the Salmon Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor does not issue guidance on the sentencing to magistrates but when speaking to members of the Magistrates' Association, of which he is the president, he may in that capacity express his personal view on the approach to sentencing for particular types of offence. Since the passing of the Salmon Act 1986, the Lord Chancellor has not spoken to magistrates on the sentencing of offenders convicted of salmon poaching.

  Mr. Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions to offer evidence in the case of alleged conspiracy to kidnap a senior official of the African National Congress in London.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made on Friday 23 October at column 1095.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he has had in each year since 1979 to extradite persons residing in the United Kingdom to face charges of alleged war crimes; how many extraditions have taken place; what steps he plans to take to investigate such allegations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Since 1979 the United Kingdom has received three requests from the Soviet Union for the extradition of people accused of war crimes. In 1986 two requests were received, one relating to a person who had died and the other to a person whose whereabouts were unknown. One request has been received this year. However, in the absence of an extradition treaty it is not possible to extradite to the Soviet Union. We are examining documentary material provided to us by the Simon Wiesenthal centre which contains serious allegations about the wartime activities of three people. In the light of our assessment of this material we shall consider what action is open to us.

  Police (Multi-racial Relationships)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that all police officers are instructed in the complexities of multi-racial relationships and in understanding the basic social needs of different ethnic, sex and religious groups.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is already our policy that all police officers should receive training which comprehends community and race relations issues.

  Privacy
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in the light of the increased sophistication of electronic means of communication and surveillance, he will ask Her Majesty's Government's legal officers to prepare urgently proposals for legal and constitutional protection of the rights to privacy.

  Mr. Renton
  No.

  "Legislating for Change"
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the Equal Opportunities Commission report on "Legislating for Change"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Equal Opportunities Commission is still considering their proposals for change to the sex discrimination legislation.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the visit to Liverpool on Thursday 22 October by the Minister of State, Home Office.

  Mr. Renton
  In Liverpool I visited the passport office and an independent television production company in my capacities as Minister with responsibility for the passport department and for broadcasting.

  Mr. Gecas
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest position regarding his inquiries into the allegations of Nazi war crimes made against Mr. Gecas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  On 17 July the Simon Wiesenthal centre presented documentary material containing serious allegations against Mr. Gecas and two others. This material is still under examination. In the light of our assessment we shall consider what action is open to us.

  Foreign Visitors
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the numbers refused admission as visitors into the United Kingdom in the last five years due to involvement in wartime Nazi organisations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if wartime involvement in the Waffen SS is a reason for refusing someone admission into the United Kingdom as a visitor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  Decisions on the admission of passengers to the United Kingdom are taken on arrival here and on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case. A passenger may be refused leave to enter on the grounds that his exclusion is conducive to the public good and factors such as that referred to by the hon. Member may be relevant to that decision. Central records are however not maintained of the detailed reasons for the refusal of leave to enter to passengers seeking entry as visitors.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now his policy towards the admission
  16
  into the United Kingdom as visitors who are leading members of the French National Front; and what representations he received over the proposed visit by the leader of that organisation.

  Mr. Renton
  Decisions on the admission of passengers to the United Kingdom are taken on their arrival here and on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case. We have received a small number of letters opposing the recent proposed visit of M. Le Pen, of which two were from hon. Members.

  Gun Shops
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any representations concerning siting of gun shops; if he has any proposals for the introduction of regulations concerning their siting, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representations have been received from time to time about the sale of firearms in particular locations. The Firearms Act 1968 contains no provisions relating to the siting of gun shops, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  It does, however, contain strict provisions for the registration and control of firearms dealers and a chief officer may refuse to register an applicant if he is satisfied that the applicant cannot be permitted to carry on business without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total prison population for England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 October 1987, the total prison population in England and Wales was 47,494. This does not include 1,298 in police cells.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population for England and Wales for each of the following dates (a) 1 June, (b) 1 July, (c) 1 August, (d) 1 September and (e) 1 October.

  Mr. John Patten
  The readily available information is given in the table.

  Population of Prison Department establishments2 in England and Wales, May to September 1987

  Number of Persons

  Date

  Population

  1987

  May 31

  49,255

  June 30

  50,265

  July 31

  50,226

  August 311

  47,105

  September 30

  47,398

  1Fall mainly due to the increase on 13 August 1987 in remission to one half for prisoners sentenced to up to 12 months.

  2Excludes prisoners in police cells.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the certified normal accommodation and the actual prison population for each of the following prisons for the latest date available:

  17
  Bedford, Birmingham, Cardiff, Gartree, Holloway, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lewes, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Oxford, Reading, Wakefield, Wandsworth.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 October, the certified normal accommodation and population of the establishments listed were as follows:

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Bedford

  176

  346

  Birmingham

  592

  1,190

  Cardiff

  340

  551

  Gartree

  315

  314

  Holloway

  479

  461

  Hull

  367

  629

  Leeds

  642

  1,306

  Leicester

  200

  396

  Lewes

  364

  567

  Lincoln

  359

  691

  Liverpool

  967

  1,233

  Manchester

  969

  1,667

  Nottingham

  202

  298

  Oxford

  127

  233

  Reading

  178

  334

  Wakefield

  756

  726

  Wandsworth

  1,266

  1,286

  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison in Yorkshire at the most recent count.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 October 1987, the total prison population in Yorkshire was 3,977.

  Prisons
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has any future plans for the following prison establishments (a) Kelmsfield House Oxfordshire, (b) Foston Hall, Derbyshire, (c) Blantyre House, Kent, (d) Nedonsley, County Durham and (e) North Sea camp, Lincolnshire.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is planned to bring North Sea camp into use as an open prison. With respect to the other establishments, the timing of their return to normal operation will be kept under review.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long have the following prison establishments remained unoccupied (a) Kelmsfield house, Oxfordshire, (b) Foston hall, Derbyshire, (c) Blantyre house, Kent, (d) Medomsley, County Durham and (e) North Sea camp, Lincolnshire.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Her Majesty's Youth Corrective Centre Campsfield house was temporarily closed on 28 September 1987.

  (b) Her Majesty's Prison Foston hall became a nonresidential establishment on 6 July 1987.

  (c) Her Majesty's detention centre Blantyre House was temporarily closed on 6 July 1987.

  (d) Her Majesty's Prison Medomsley is due to close temporarily on Monday 26 October 1987.

  (e) Her Majesty's detention centre North Sea camp became a non-residential establishment on 21 September 1987.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers, from what divisions, of what ranks, and at which locations, were receiving training on 22 October for duties in connection with the supervision and security of prisons.
  18
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it remains his policy to implement the fresh start agreement reached with the Prison Officers Association insofar as it relates to the provision of extra staff with effect from February 1988.

  Mr. Hurd
  Yes. I remain committed to the provision of extra staff between now and 28 February 1988 and over the five years from 1 April 1988 in accordance with the terms of the fresh start agreement.

  Grendon Prison
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to change the therapeutic regime at Grendon prison.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. As recommended by the advisory committee on the therapeutic regime at Grendon, the establishment continues to concentrate in the main on the provision of group therapy for prisoners clinically referred by prison medical officers.

  Probation
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the last three months about "Probation—The Next Five Years," a joint statement by the Central Council of Probation Committees, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the National Association of Probation Officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  Sixteen letters have been received from hon. Members on the subject. My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the three organisations in August and discussed the statement with them.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he or other Ministers in his Department have made any recent visits to probation services in England and Wales; and if he has any plans to do so in the future.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since April this year the Home Secretary has visited probation services in north Wales (in April) and the west midlands (in October); I visited the Inner London probation service in July. My right hon. Friend plans to visit a day centre project in Norwich in March 1988; and I plan to visit the Hampshire and Oxfordshire services this month, Northumbria probation service in November and Hereford and Worcester probation service in January 1988.

  Black Defendants
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black defendants were received into prison during 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  White

  45,959

  13,913

  West Indian, Guyanese, African

  5,748

  1,425

  19

  Ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  1,081

  237

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed Origin

  1,167

  305

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  1,514

  248

  Total1

  55,469

  16,128

  1Total cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in category because some untried prisoners were subsequently received as convicted unsentenced.

  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Liverpool.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Merseyside on 1 and 2 October, and again on 21 October. On the evening of 1 October I was a guest at the Merseyside senior police officers' mess dinner. On the following day I visited the police port unit, the main Bridewell and local police stations, and had discussions with the chief constable and senior officers at force headquarters about a range of policing issues. I had useful discussions with members of the Merseyside police authority.

  I was pleased to speak at the first of the national crime prevention road shows at Knowsley on 21 October.

  West Yorkshire (Police)
  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for the number of police in west Yorkshire for each of the years 1974 to 1987, respectively.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  West Yorkshire Police

  On 31 December

  Authorised police establishment

  Actual strength

  1974

  5.103

  4,412

  1975

  5,104

  4,547

  1976

  5,104

  4,676

  1977

  5,104

  4,616

  1978

  5,104

  4,621

  1979

  5,104

  4,799

  1980

  5,104

  5,040

  1981

  5,154

  5,147

  1982

  5,154

  5,155

  1983

  5,154

  5,116

  1984

  5,154

  5,026

  1985

  5,154

  5,049

  1986

  5,154

  5,116

  19871

  5,204

  25,219

  131 August.

  2Strength exceeded the establishment in August because the force had approval for 17 supernumerary posts for temporary purposes.

  Defendants (Statistics)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of defendants who were remanded in custody during (a) 1985 and (b) 1986 and who were subsequently either found not guilty, not proceeded with or given a non-custodial sentence.
  20
  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is published in table 2.4 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1986"(Cm. 210).

  Grants
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 11 applications are currently awaiting decision; how this compares with the number of applications awaiting decision in October 1986; what is the average time taken in reaching a decision on a section 11 application; and if Ministers consider personally all section 11 applications.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are currently under consideration 135 applications for section 11 grant in respect of 980 posts. At the end of October 1986 there were seven applications covering 14 posts outstanding. However, these figures are not directly comparable because there had been a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications between late March and the end of September 1986 while new arrangements for the administration of grant, which came into effect on 1 October 1986, were being prepared.

  Since 1 October 1986 the average time taken to complete consideration of an application for grant has been just under three months. In general the aim is to complete consideration within this period but this depends on the number of posts applied for; what further information may be required from the local authority and whether advice needs to be sought from other Government Departments where they have an interest. All recommendations for approval of new posts are considered by Ministers.

  Earl William
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Earl William ship in Harwich, used for detaining asylum seekers, coming adrift in the recent storm.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Member to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) on 21 October at column 781.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being held on remand in England and Wales for the latest date available.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 30 September 1987, about 11,650 untried or convicted unsentenced prisoners were held in custody in England and Wales. This number included about 820 prisoners held in police cells, most of whom were untried or convicted unsentenced.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) how many males are currently being held in police cells, (b) how many females are currently being held in police cells and (c) how many of the totals were sentenced prisoners for all police districts of England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 October 1987, the number of prisoners being held in police cells in all police areas in
  21
  England and Wales was 1,268 males and 30 females. Information relating to the numbers of sentenced prisoners in police cells is incomplete but of the 1,142 prisoners held by or on behalf of the Metropolitan police, 74 were sentenced.

  Mr. Frank Larsen and Others
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Frank Larsen at the Regent Palace hotel on 9 July; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how the police established that a Ministry of Defence police warrant card in the possession of a Mr. Frank Larsen, charged in connection with alleged conspiracy to kidnap members of the African National Congress, had been forged; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what steps have been taken to recover classified material found in the possession of Frank Larsen at his home and premises he has occupied; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) when Her Majesty's Government first became aware of an alleged conspiracy to kidnap members of the African National Congress in London;

  (5) if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to when all documents previously in the possession of Frank Larsen, John Larsen, Hans Christian Dahl, Viggo Oerbak, Jonathon Wheatley, Evan Dennis-Evans and Johann Neimoller will be returned to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on Friday 23 October 1987.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to on what grounds Frank Larsen, John Larsen, Evan Dennis-Evans and Jonathon Wheatley were held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  Mr. Hurd
  All four men were arrested and detained under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 on suspicion of having been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Space Programme
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting on 19 October between officials of his department and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology on the subject of the space programme.

  Mr. Butcher
  Officials from my Department attended a meeting arranged on 19 October by the Advisory Council on Science and Technology with representatives of various sections of the space community.

  A number of presentations were made and discussed, which were useful to the advisory council in forming a view on the space programme.

  Airbus
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total sum contributed from public funds in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Spain respectively to the Airbus project; what assessment he has made of the viability and potential profitability of the project; and if he will be attending the forthcoming meeting with the United States trade representative, Mr. Yeutter, to discuss the project.

  Mr. Butcher
  Figures are not available for the total public contribution to all Airbus projects. The United Kingdom Government will provide up to £40 million in launch aid to enable British Aerospace to participate in the A330/A340 project. A full and critical project appraisal was carried out to determine that the project had sound prospects of achieving commercial viability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will attend the meeting on 27 October between Dr. Yeutter, Commissioner de Clercq and Airbus Ministers.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what deficit in the manufacturing trade the United Kingdom experienced with the European Economic Community in the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available; and what were the total figures of manufactured goods exported to and imported from the European Economic Community during that 12-month period.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the 12 months to September 1987, exports of manufactures to the European Community amounted to £27·7 billion and imports to £38·5 billion resulting in a crude deficit of £10·8 billion. These figures are on the overseas trade statistic basis: imports, but not exports, include the cost of insurance and freight.

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

  Mr. Butcher
  In the Department of Trade and Industry

  (a) the equal opportunity officer (EOO) has spent about 50 per cent. of his working time in the past year on equal opportunities duties;

  (b) the EOO is also the chief welfare officer and departmental nominated officer for staff restaurant matters;

  (c) there is no departmental budget specifically for equal opportunities work; those responsible for relevant activities (eg training, recruitment) make appropriate provision in their budgets;

  23

  (d) the EOO meets all other EOOs at leat once a year: in addition there are ad hoc meetings and seminars of groups of EOOs on particular subjects;

  (e) the departmental training officer and the EOO have received central guidance on all aspects of promoting equal opportunities including positive action which may be taken to provide "minority sex" training under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975;

  (f) line managers have been encouraged to identify part-time working opportunities and staff to apply for such posts: maternity leave is available as well as special leave, where appropriate, to cover the care of children.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contingency plans Her Majesty's Government have in the event of failure of their appeal to private investors to help the inner cities crisis.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The private sector, and private investors, are already fully committed to the inner cities through a wide range of Government programmes which include their participation. I expect their support to develop and grow. We need to give it every encouragement, not speculate about what might happen if it were not there.

WALES

  Sheep Sector
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet representatives of the farming unions in Wales to discuss the future of the sheep sector.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met the National Farmers Union in Wales on 28 September and I shall be meeting the Farmers Union of Wales in the near future. I intend to keep in close contact with the leaders of both unions during any negotiations affecting the sheepmeat regime.

  Wales Advisory Body
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends meeting representatives of the Wales Advisory Body to discuss his proposals for further and higher education in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The next meeting of the committee of the Wales Advisory Body, which I chair, takes place on 6 November.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the percentage of jobs in Wales which are in firms whose headquarters are outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  An estimated 22 per cent. of jobs in manufacturing industry in Wales are in firms whose headquarters are outside the United Kingdom, reflecting the considerable success of our inward investment activity. Figures for non-manufacturing are not available.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for
  24
  unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales: and if he will give the equivalent figure for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  On 10 September 1987, 8,649, 25,465 and 154,996 persons were unemployed in Newport district, Gwent and Wales respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made.

  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the fall in unemployment in Wales during the past 12 months; and what has been the increase in notified job vacancies during the same period.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Between 11 September 1986 and 10 September 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in Wales fell by 25,374. Between 5 September 1986 and 4 September 1987 the number of vacancies notified to jobcentres and careers offices in Wales increased by 357.

  Craig-y-nos Castle
  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to stop the authorisation of the sale of Craig-y-nos Castle by his Department, until he can guarantee the continuation of cultural activities there.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Craig-y-nos Castle has a grade II* listing. It has been put to me that this may be correct for the main building, but that the theatre should have a higher listing. I have looked into this and decided that the theatre should indeed be listed grade I, but that the remainder of the building should be listed as grade II.

  It is important that this hospital should be sold so that the resources released can be made available for the benefit of patient care in the Health Service. I hope that when it is put up for sale with this revised listing a purchaser will be found who can make effective use of this very important building.

  Industrial Development
  Sir Raymond Gower
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure on industrial support and development in Wales between 1979 and 1983 and since 1983 to date.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Expenditure on regional selective assistance and regional development grants in Wales for the financial years 1979–80 to 1982–83 and 1983–84 to 1986–87 is as follows:

  1979–80 to 1982–83

  1983–84 to 1986–87

  £ million

  £ million

  452

  445

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in favour of Welsh being included as a subject in the curriculum binding upon schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have received about 100 representations which refer to the position of the Welsh language within the national curriculum, of which
  25
  approximately three-quarters favour the inclusion of Welsh as a core or foundation subject throughout Wales. We are still considering our response to these representations.

  Contraception
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many general practitioners in Wales hold the joint committee on contraception certificate in family planning;

  (2) how many and which health authorities provide designated young people's birth control services in Wales;

  (3) how many (a) National Health Service family planning clinics and (b) general practitioner health centres are designated as training centres for family planning in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment (a) by contraceptive method and (b) by source of treatment clinic or general practitioner in Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The available information for Wales is given in the following table. It is only possible to provide a split between IUD and other methods for patients receiving contraceptive services from general practitioners.

  Persons receiving advice and treatment

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Family planning clinics1

  Oral contraceptives

  43,163

  45,937

  45,565

  42,134

  39,767

  IUD

  11,512

  10,754

  11,156

  11,348

  10,280

  Cap/diaphragm

  4,539

  4,392

  5,309

  5,295

  5,005

  Sheath

  10,449

  11,363

  13,242

  12,739

  12,425

  Chemicals

  895

  698

  963

  755

  770

  Rhythm

  17

  25

  23

  11

  12

  Female sterilization

  68

  85

  81

  675

  666

  Vasectomy

  356

  155

  234

  816

  806

  Other

  1,744

  2,336

  2,421

  2,432

  2,617

  None

  3,731

  3,695

  4,153

  4,623

  4,579

  Total

  76,474

  79,440

  83,147

  80,828

  76,927

  General medical practitioners2

  IUD

  3,973

  4,026

  4,590

  5,445

  5,489

  Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Premises

  Sessions

  Premises

  Sessions

  Premises

  Sessions

  Premises

  Sessions

  Premises

  Sessions

  Clwyd

  17

  1,423

  17

  1,407

  17

  1,407

  19

  1,398

  19

  1,414

  East Dyfed

  10

  406

  10

  391

  11

  462

  11

  471

  11

  505

  Pembrokeshire

  5

  247

  6

  269

  5

  246

  5

  267

  5

  276

  Gwent

  38

  2,306

  38

  2,382

  38

  2,407

  38

  2,367

  35

  2,333

  Gwynedd

  22

  924

  28

  961

  28

  975

  28

  957

  27

  939

  Mid Glamorgan

  35

  2,073

  35

  2,172

  36

  2,172

  35

  2,104

  35

  2,001

  Powys

  7

  202

  7

  208

  7

  210

  7

  208

  7

  203

  South Glamorgan

  20

  1,778

  20

  1,786

  20

  1,711

  20

  1,676

  20

  1,649

  West Glamorgan

  22

  1,066

  24

  1,111

  23

  1,168

  23

  1,097

  21

  1,119

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a detailed breakdown of publicly funded
  26

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Other

  101,726

  107,412

  114,069

  113,555

  122,838

  Total

  105,699

  111,438

  118,659

  119,000

  128,327

  1 Method recommended, chosen, or already in use at time of first visit during the year (including domiciliary service).

  2 Patients for whom payment was made during the quarter ending 30th March each year.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what were the rates of conception (i) inside, and (ii) outside marriage, by age of women, in each health authority in Wales in 1985.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available at a district health authority level.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the rates of conception and resultant maternity or abortion by age of women in 1985 in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table. Details of the definitions and methods of estimation used were published in OPCS Monitor FMI 87/2 on 2 September 1987.

  Conception rates per 1000 women resident in Wales: 1985

  Age of mother at conception

  All conceptions

  Leading to maternities

  Leading to abortions under 1967 Act

  All ages1

  73·5

  62·2

  11·3

  Under 201

  66·4

  47·9

  18·6

  20–24

  125·1

  109·4

  15·7

  25–29

  135·2

  123·0

  12·1

  30–34

  70·0

  61·2

  8·8

  35–39

  24·2

  17·5

  6·7

  40 and over1

  6·2

  3·1

  3·1

  1 Rates for women of all ages, under 20 and 40 and over are based on the populations of women aged 15–44, 15–19 and 40–44 respectively.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of family planning clinics and family planning clinic sessions in each district health authority in Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The following table provides the number of premises used regularly at year-end by district health authorities for family planning sessions and the number of sessions held during the year.

  subsidies to private residential establishments and nursing homes by authority in Wales for each of the last five years and the estimates for 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has no general powers to subsidise private residential establishments and nursing
  27
  homes but a small number of projects have been supported through the urban programme and by means of urban development grant on the normal criteria applying to those schemes. I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving details.

  Forestry Planting Licences
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for forestry planting licences in Wales were objected to by (a) local authorities, (b) statutory bodies and (c) other bodies, respectively, in each of the last five years and 1987 to date; and how many were refused as a result.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Only local authorities and other statutory bodies are formally consulted by the Forestry Commission over applications for grant aid for planting. For the years in question the information is as follows:

  Legal abortions to Welsh residents

  District/Area Health Authority of Usual Residence

  Year

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Pembrokeshire

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  19681

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,012

  1969

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,530

  1970

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3,835

  1971

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,798

  1972

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,222

  1973

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,116

  1974

  506

  616

  757

  392

  928

  201

  621

  888

  4,909

  1975

  510

  561

  817

  354

  846

  188

  669

  887

  4,832

  1976

  574

  588

  730

  398

  866

  207

  637

  865

  4,865

  1977

  664

  599

  685

  398

  935

  187

  660

  880

  5,008

  1978

  764

  634

  800

  457

  1,016

  222

  856

  867

  5,616

  1979

  792

  463

  246

  872

  484

  1,237

  232

  832

  1,051

  6,209

  1980

  840

  456

  251

  990

  474

  1,164

  240

  898

  978

  6,291

  1981

  832

  501

  259

  968

  558

  1,055

  235

  908

  1,025

  6,341

  1982

  828

  473

  228

  923

  468

  981

  223

  924

  1,054

  6,102

  1983

  889

  492

  237

  811

  477

  911

  233

  923

  891

  5,864

  1984

  915

  493

  246

  969

  514

  1,006

  245

  919

  930

  6,237

  1985

  1,008

  514

  253

  1,015

  507

  1,109

  257

  1,001

  933

  6,597

  1986

  1,014

  561

  246

  921

  544

  1,192

  237

  1,040

  991

  6,746

  1 (27 April–31 December).

  Sources: "Abortion Statistics" Series AB, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1974–1986).

  "Registrar General's Statistical Review of England and Wales: Supplement on Abortion" (1968–1973).

  Gynaecological Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennet
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list by each Welsh district health authority the number of outstanding gynaecological operations waiting to be performed;

  (2) if he will list by each district health authority the number of gynaecological operations waiting to be performed.

  Mr. Grist
  The following table gives the number of people on the gynaecological in-patient waiting list as at 31 March 1987:

  Health Authority

  Waiting list (31 March 1987)

  Clwyd

  701

  East Dyfed

  205

  28

  Year

  Number of applications objected to

  Number of objections from

  Decisions taken on these applications

  Local authorities

  Other statutory bodies

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  4

  4

  2

  All refused

  1985

  2

  2

  2

  Both refused

  1986

  1

  1

  1

  Refused

  1987 to date

  5

  3

  4

  Two refused

  One approved

  Two pending

  Abortions
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each Welsh district health authority area the number of abortions undertaken in each year since 1967.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of legally induced abortions, notified under the Abortion Act 1967, by district health authority area of woman's usual residence for the years 1974–1986, are given in the following table:

  Health Authority

  Waiting list (31 March 1987)

  Pembrokeshire

  187

  Gwent

  745

  Gwynedd

  247

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,026

  Powys

  —

  South Glamorgan

  502

  West Glamorgan

  880

  Information on the number of these people who are waiting for an operation is not available centrally.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Curates
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what are the average current pay and emoluments of curates; what were the comparable figures in real terms five, 10, 15 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The current average stipend of an assistant curate is £7,469. In addition, he is provided with a house free of rent, rates, repairs and insurance. The comparative figures are given below. They show a substantial improvement in real terms over the period.

  Average stipend of Assistant Curates

  Equivalent at April 1987 prices

  Average stipend in 1987

  Increase in real terms

  £

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  19871

  7,469

  7,469

  7,469

  —

  1982

  4,914

  6,173

  7,469

  +21

  1977

  2,039

  4,542

  7,469

  +64

  1972

  1,000

  4,750

  7,469

  +57

  19672

  800

  5,500

  7,469

  +36

  1 For 1987–88 the recommended four year incremental scale for assistant curates is £6,966–£7,475.

  2 There was no national scale in 1967 nor comparable statistics. However, the record indicates that the average stipend of assistant curates was in the region of £800 (or £5,500 at April 1987 prices).

DEFENCE

  Exercise Purple Warrior
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any special arrangements have been made for compensation and restoration in relation to any damage arising from Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Yes. In view of the scale of Exercise Purple Warrior, arrangements are being made to ensure that damage repair units and suitably qualified claims assessors will be on hand throughout the exercise period. They will either carry out any necessary repairs, or discuss the arrangements for any necessary compensation, as rapidly and effectively as possible.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the arrangements for monitoring of Exercise Purple Warrior by United Kingdom civil authorities.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no arrangements for Exercise Purple Warrior to be monitored by civil authorities and no request for such arrangements has been received, although those authorities most closely involved in the exercise have been fully consulted in the course of exercise planning. Should problems arise which require further consultations with them, these will, of course, take place.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that the south-west of Scotland will not be used for further major exercises after Exercise Purple Warrior.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. South-west Scotland will continue to be one of the areas which we will use for 30
  military training. However, it is unlikely that another exercise on the scale of Exercise Purple Warrior will be carried out for some years in the same area.

  British Servicemen (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received any request from the National Radiological Protection Board for the names and last recorded addresses of British service personnel involved in British nuclear tests.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes, the National Radiologica Protection Board has been given information on test participants from MOD service records. These normally contain the last recorded address of ex-service men.

  Mr. Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mr. Viggo Oerbak ever stayed at the Chelsea barracks in the capacity of a person employed by the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have not identified anyone of that name as having stayed at the Chelsea barracks.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions Messrs. (a) Viggo Oerbak, (b) Frank Larsen, (c) John Larsen, (d) Hans Christian Dahl and (e) Johann Neimoller have met serving British officers in the course of official duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have found no evidence of any such meetings.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Western Isles who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in East Lothian who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Doran
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Aberdeen, South constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in Cunninghame, North who have been refused benefit following a restart interview.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants at Ayr and Cumnock who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the scheme.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of claimants in the

  31
  Glasgow, Pollok constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Midlothian constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish an estimate of the number of claimants in Kilmarnock and Loudoun who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Dunfermline, West constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Milian
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of claimants in Glasgow and Scotland, respectively, who have been removed from the register of unemployed persons following a restart interview in each month since restart began.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many claimants in (a) Aberdeen, North constituency and (b) Aberdeen have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the beginning of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the constituency of Falkirk, West who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in Glasgow, Maryhill who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the constituency of Fife, Central who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants
  32
  in Livingston who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Paisley, South constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the constituency of Cunninghame, South who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in Monklands, East, who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the scheme.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the constituency of East Kilbride who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Dundee, East constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the restart scheme.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Dundee. West constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in Dumbarton constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in Paisley, North who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of claimants in the Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde constituency who have been refused benefit following a restart interview in each month since the commencement of the restart scheme.

  Mr. Lee
  Any refusal of benefit subsequent to a restart interview follows not from the interview itself but from the decision of an independent adjudication officer operating under long-standing legal rules adopted by successive Governments.

  Scientists
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many scientists from other countries other than Britain worked in Scotland for more than four months for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not collated centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of job vacancies in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee travel-to-work area for the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply as soon as possible.

  Community Programme
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in England and Wales since 1984 for offences relating to the fraudulent misuse or misappropriation of money advanced by the Manpower Services Commission in connection with community programme projects.

  Mr. Lee
  Since 1984 there have been 16 prosecutions, resulting in 10 convictions and one acquittal, with five cases still to be determined. The Manpower Services Commission vigorously investigates any allegations of misuse of public funds on the community programme, referring serious cases to the police and seeking recovery of the monies involved.

  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the staff of a supermarket would be employed under the revised community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  None.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Standard Chartered Bank
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects the publication of the results of the Bank of England's investigation into recent affairs of Standard Chartered bank.

  Mr. Lilley
  The inspectors appointed by the Bank of England under section 17 of the Banking Act 1979 have not yet completed their report. The findings contained in this report will be subject to Banking Act confidentiality requirements and it will be for the Bank of England to decide after consideration of the report what further action to take.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing for families with one to four children the income break-even levels, in pound sterling per week and as percentage of average male manual earnings, at which child benefit entitlement is the same as income tax liability.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October, c. 794]: The information is in the table.
  34

  Levels of income at which child benefit entitlement equals income tax liability1, 1987–88

  Number of Children

  Break-even levels of income

  £ per week

  As percentage of average male manual earnings2

  1

  99·83

  51·8

  2

  126·68

  65·7

  3

  153·54

  79·6

  4

  180·39

  93·5

  1 Assuming husband in employment and no wife's earnings.

  2 Of full time males aged over 21.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes any changes in the PEP regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have decided to make a number of changes to the regulations on personal equity plans designd to simplify the running of the scheme. The changes to take effect from 1 January 1988 are:

  (i) Plan managers will be required to provide plan holders with copies of the report and accounts of each company only if the plan holder opts to receive them. Discretionary plan managers will also he required to provide a six monthly statement explaining why they have bought and sold particular shares.

  (ii) Cash payments into PEPs above the £2,400 limit may be made in order to take up the rights issues or other entitlements arising from beneficial ownership of shares, provided the shares were purchased before the announcement of the rights issue or other entitlements.

  (iii) The time period for which cash may be held after the first year of a plan is to be increased from 28 to 31 days.

  (vi) A minor tehnical change will ensure that, as always intended, the CGT exemption should in all cases apply only to capital gains over and above the market price at the time the shares are purchased into the PEP.

  I shall in due course table draft regulations to bring these changes into effect.

ENVIRONMENT

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the 1983 survey of improvement grants referred to in the Green Paper "Home Improvements—a New Approach", Cmnd 95B.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A summary of the main findings of the Department's distribution of grant inquiry was published in May 1985 as an annex to the Green Paper on home improvement policy. A further report will be published as soon as possible.

  Enterprise Boards
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his policy is towards enterprise boards; what plans he has to encourage their activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The establishment of enterprise boards and other similar bodies is one means by which local
  35
  authorities have made a contribution to local economic development. Their activities are relevant to recommendations of the Widdicombe committee which I am considering.

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

  Mr. Ridley
  (a) My Department has two equal opportunities officers, one for the central part of the Department (shared with the Department of Transport) and one for the Property Services Agency. Both are grade 5 heads of division. No specific proportion of their time is allocated to any of their functions. They are supported by six staff who work full-time on equal opportunities matters and have no other responsibilities.

  (b) The equal opportunities officers themselves have wide ranging responsibilities for personnel management policies and services to staff.

  (c) Every member of staff with management responsibilities is involved in the implementation of equal opportunities policy. It is not possible to assign a specific cost to the work.

  (d) The equal opportunities officers and their staff have frequent meetings, both formal and informal, with their counterparts from other Government Departments.

  (e) No specific guidelines have been issued.

  (f) All requests for part-time working and job sharing are met wherever possible. Special leave arrangements exist to help staff deal with domestic responsibilities. Explanatory material has been published and made available to all staff.

  Rate-capped Authorities
  Mr. Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those rate-capped authorities which have applied for redetermination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has received applications for a redetermination of their 1988–89 expenditure levels from the London boroughs of Southwark and Tower Hamlets. He expects to announce his decisions on these applications in December.

  Weather Radars
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent his discussion document, "An Outline National Response Plan: Incidents involving a release of radioactivity to the environment: Monitoring and Data Assessment" of July 1987 takes account of the
  36
  advice given by the Meteorological Office in its annual report 1986, to the effect on the inclusion of Scotland in the network of weather radars provided for the rest of the United Kingdom and what would be the cost of such inclusion.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In formulating the national response plan it was acknowledged that weather radar would be helpful in identifying areas most likely to be affected by fall-out in rain. The programmes of the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence now provide for the installation of three weather radar stations in Scotland in the early 1990s.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what detailed and researched information he has about the likely increased costs required by the community charge, as compared with the costs of collecting the present rates.

  Mr. Howard
  My officials are discussing with the local authority associations and others the likely cost of operating the new system. The cost to each local authority will depend largely on its success in reducing unit costs.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make compensation available to local authorities in the event of serious delays in the collection of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  There is no reason to expect such delays.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will detail the measures to be taken for the protection from abuse of the information about citizens and their families for the application of the community charge;

  (2) what legal provisions he proposes to introduce to deal with abuse by people involved in the gathering of information for the poll tax with the knowledge so obtained.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no reason to believe that there will be any abuse by community charge registration officers of the information they obtain. The Data Protection Act 1984 places obligations on those who record and use personal data and gives rights to individuals about whom data are held.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures will he adopt in order to avoid potentially regressive effects of the community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  The Green Paper, "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) demonstrates that the community charge will be less regressive than domestic rates for those with low incomes.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the extent to which the proposed community charge will result in retirement pensioners being displaced from their family households as a result of increases in the local taxation burden on that household.

  Mr. Howard
  None. There is no reason why a retirement pensioner should place a greater financial
  37
  burden on a family household than at present. The community charge will be an individual liability and each individual or couple within the household will be able to apply for a rebate.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the numbers of people who will be required to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: Figure J9 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) estimated total housing benefit case load (GB) at 7·66 million when the community charge was fully in place. Of that total it is estimated that 44½—s54½ million cases would be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates. These estimates of housing benefit case load are derived from a computer model and are sensitive to community charge levels, to income support rates and to the arrangements for transition to the community charge. The estimate, therefore, gives a broad indication only of the possible outcome.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reproduce figure J7 of Cmnd 9714

  Figure J7 of Green Paper Paying for Local Government by region based on 1985–86 data

  Number of Gainers and Losers: Thousands of Households

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  East Anglia

  Greater London

  South East

  South Western

  West Midlands

  North Western

  England

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  ('000s)

  POUNDS PER WEEK

  Losers

  10+

  12

  19

  2

  —

  182

  1

  1

  —

  6

  221

  5–10

  106

  158

  29

  3

  239

  16

  12

  14

  92

  668

  2–5

  294

  438

  172

  39

  387

  154

  139

  124

  359

  2,107

  1–2

  152

  250

  160

  38

  251

  207

  116

  116

  218

  1,507

  0–1

  338

  510

  307

  123

  396

  396

  293

  309

  515

  3,186

  Total losers

  901

  1,375

  669

  203

  1,455

  773

  561

  563

  1,190

  7,690

  Gainers

  0–1

  222

  340

  389

  239

  392

  928

  432

  588

  591

  4,121

  1–2

  57

  88

  186

  131

  160

  547

  199

  286

  202

  1,857

  2–5

  69

  131

  220

  155

  239

  1,054

  279

  399

  302

  2,849

  5–10

  14

  39

  43

  43

  77

  423

  70

  119

  101

  929

  10+

  4

  1

  9

  4

  21

  83

  9

  17

  12

  160

  Total gainers

  366

  600

  847

  572

  890

  3,034

  989

  1,409

  1,208

  9,916

  PERCENTAGE OR NET INCOME

  Losers

  10+

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  1

  1

  16

  5–10

  16

  25

  —

  —

  183

  —

  1

  —

  4

  230

  2–5

  234

  350

  67

  8

  367

  41

  37

  33

  207

  1,343

  1–2

  251

  407

  176

  40

  340

  141

  137

  121

  320

  1,933

  0–1

  400

  593

  426

  155

  550

  591

  386

  409

  658

  4,171

  Total losers

  902

  1,375

  669

  203

  1,455

  773

  561

  564

  1,191

  7,694

  Gainers

  0–1

  251

  385

  485

  319

  477

  1,327

  552

  710

  691

  5,198

  1–2

  66

  129

  229

  146

  208

  896

  240

  387

  285

  2,586

  2–5

  38

  78

  117

  94

  167

  694

  171

  256

  199

  1,814

  5–10

  10

  8

  14

  12

  32

  106

  26

  49

  29

  284

  10+

  2

  —

  2

  1

  5

  12

  1

  7

  4

  33

  Total gainers

  366

  600

  847

  572

  890

  3,034

  989

  1,409

  1,208

  9,916

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will construct a table in the same form as figure J7 on page 125 of "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) showing the numbers of
  38
  "Paying for Local Government", showing households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge by (a) region, (b) local authority, and (c) parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: The figures show the numbers of households projected to experience different levels of changes in "household tax bills". The projections use 1985–86 data, the latest currently available for use within the tax benefit model. They are based on the illustrative community charges published on 29 June 1987. Overall, they show 9·9 million households with reduced houehold tax bills and 7·7 million with increases. These projections are sensitive to assumptions about spending and grant levels about which it is not possible to make projections up to 1994 when implementation will be complete. A further disaggregation of these figures by households type could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Projections for individual local authority and constituency areas are not possible because of the limitations of the sample survey data on which the projections are based.

  adults living in each of the households gaining and losing with full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge.
  39
  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 October 1987, c. 818]: The table shows estimated numbers of households gaining and losing by household type on the basis of illustrative community charge figures for 1985–86. It is

  Impact of the introduction of the full community charge in England

  Thousands of gainers and losers: household types

  Pounds per week

  Single pensioner

  Other single adult

  Two adults

  Three + adults

  All households

  Losers

  10+

  —

  —

  98

  123

  222

  5 to 10

  2

  25

  254

  387

  669

  2 to 5

  20

  91

  1,291

  704

  2,108

  1 to 2

  45

  115

  1,056

  292

  1,509

  0 to 1

  404

  283

  2,217

  284

  3,187

  TOTAL LOSERS

  471

  515

  4,916

  1,791

  7,695

  Gainers

  0 to 1

  1,233

  634

  1,994

  257

  4,122

  1 to 2

  185

  295

  1,248

  128

  1,856

  2 to 5

  365

  514

  1,823

  146

  2,849

  5 to 10

  125

  150

  597

  56

  928

  10+

  12

  16

  114

  17

  160

  TOTAL GAINERS

  1,920

  1,609

  5,776

  605

  9,915

  Housing
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built by the private sector in the United Kingdom for each year since 1980; and what were the comparable figures each year from 1973 to 1979.
  40
  estimated that there are 17·1 million adults in households which are gainers and 16·7 million adults in households which are losers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of dwelling completions in the United Kingdom in the years 1976 to 1986 appear in table 6.1(f) of "Housing and Construction Statistics, 1976–1986" and those for 1973 to 1975 in the corresponding table of the 1973–1983 edition. Copies are available in the Library.

  Board and Lodging
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific measures he proposes to solve the problems of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid for from public funds.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is for local authorities to decide how they discharge their duties towards homeless people. The Government have advised very strongly that they should not put families in bed and breakfast accommodation, and many local authorities do not do so. The Government have offered extra resources to local authorities to bring empty properties back into use to house homeless families. We have developed new mixed funding arrangements with housing associations specifically for the benefit of homeless people.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking in order to involve local authorities closely in his search for a solution to inner city problems.

  Mr. Trippier
  Fifty seven authorities in England are invited to prepare co-ordinated inner area programmes to address local needs. Seventy five per cent. of approved expenditure is supported by urban programme grant.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to produce an Ordnance Survey map showing the annual increase in the extent of blanket afforestation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Ordnance Survey is responsible for the official surveying and mapping of Great Britain. It aims to maintain and update the topographic survey of the country but does not produce maps of annual land use change.

  Calderdale
  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be replying to Calderdale council's request for a meeting to discuss the council's GREA for highways.

  Mr. Chope
  My hon. and learned Friend, the Minister for Local Government, will be writing very soon.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional finance for local authorities to enable them to reintroduce intermediate repair and improvement grants.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Grant expenditure at some £400 million a year remains at a historically high level. It is for local authorities to decide how much to spend on grants for repairs and improvements within the sums available to them from their housing investment programme allocation and from prescribed capital receipts.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, for each of the 57 English local
  42
  authorities currently entitled to make applications far urban programme funding, for each year from 1978–79 to 1987–88 where appropriate (a) the amount of revenue and capital allocations in cash and current prices and (b) the amount of grant paid in cash and current prices.

  Mr. Ridley
  I provided in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 30 June 1987, at column 64, details of grant paid in current prices. I will write to the hon. Member with updated details and with the further information requested on urban programme allocations.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each authority in England for each of the three years 1984–85 to 1986–87 their maximum permitted spending under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 showing for each authority gross revenue spending, gross capital spending, total gross spending, and net total spending.

  Mr. Ridley
  I shall send the hon. Member a print-out showing the available information for each principal council in England (section 137 also applies to all parish councils).

  Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a pilot urban development corporation scheme in Bolton as part of his initiative for revitalising the inner cities; and if he will make a statement.

  >Mr. Trippier
  I shall bear the suggestion in mind.

  Birtenshaw Farm, Bolton
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the further representations by local residents against development at Birtenshaw farm, Bolton; and when he will be announcing his decision about the covenant against building on the site.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Local residents have been told that all their representations will be taken into account. These and the statements made by the main parties are being considered but I am unable yet to say how soon a decision can be announced.

  Planning Appeals (Costs)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give further consideration to the payment of objectors' costs at green belt planning appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The Government's response to the fifth report of the Environment Committee (Cm 43) set out in paragraphs 63–65 our reasons for concluding against public funding of costs incurred by objectors in appearing at public inquiries. I see no grounds for making an exception in respect of planning appeals for development in the green belt.

  Gun Shops
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals for the introduction of planning regulations which would enable local authorities to control the siting of gun shops; and if he will make a statement.
  43
  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Local planning authorities have power to control the siting of a gun shop if a development proposal entails either erecting a new building or making a material change of use of an existing building. A proposal to sell guns from a building already used for one of the purposes in class A1 of the schedule to the Use Classes Order 1987, Shops, would not require planning permission. The development control system is concerned with land use planning matters and not with the use to which goods may be put once sold.

  Large Panel System Dwellings (Mortgages)
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has met representatives of the Building Societies Association with regard to the mortgageability of large panel system dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My officials had a helpful discussion on this subject with representatives of the Building Societies Association on Wednesday 9 September and have since written to them confirming the points made at that meeting. The BSA had already publicised to its member societies the Building Research Establishment's findings on large panel properties and will be issuing further guidance to societies in due course.

  Rail Link (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the possibility of a rail link between Bradford Interchange and the Bradford Foster Square rail route was taken into account when drawing up plans for a courthouse development in Bradford on the former Exchange station site; whether the local authority made representations for the rail link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The possibility of a rail link (between Bradford Interchange and Bradford Foster Square rail route) was drawn to the attention of the Property Services Agency by the city of Bradford metropolitan council when it accepted in outline form the proposed development of a courthouse on the former Exchange station site. The PSA examined the implications of such a link on the proposed courthouse development and reported that in its view the two developments could not share the same site. This view was endorsed by the council earlier this year when it authorised PSA to proceed with the courthouse development as programmed.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what finance he will provide for the London borough of Waltham Forest to replace trees destroyed in the recent storm.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Wednesday 21 October.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what finance he will provide to the London borough of Waltham Forest to make safe the approximately 700 dangerous structures in the borough as a result of the recent storm.
  44
  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Wednesday 21 October. A letter has been sent to the chief executive of the London borough of Waltham Forest, giving details of the arrangements for claiming assistance under the Bellwin scheme. My right hon. Friend's announcement also dealt with the question of additional capital allocations for damage to buildings.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses purchased under the right-to-buy legislation have been repossessed due to failure to repay the mortgages (a) total, (b) as a percentage of those sold and (c) in total as a percentage of those sold, listed by county.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The available information on properties taken into possession by building societies and local authorities does not distinguish former council dwellings from other housing.

  Mini-UDCs
  Mr. Cran
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish full details of the proposal he made relating to mini-UDCs; and when he is going to designate the first tranche of those areas that are to receive them.

  Mr. Trippier
  As soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Surplus Food and Wine
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister for Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the amount being expended weekly by the European Economic Community on the storage, distribution and disposal, respectively of surplus food and wine; and what were the comparable sums spent per week on these services five and 10 years previously.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The table sets out weekly community expenditure on technical and financing costs of public intervention, and on export refunds and internal disposal subsidies (including loss on sale out of intervention) for commodities now in structural surplus (cereals, sugar, olive oil, wine, beef, milk and milk products). Community expenditure on distribution of products is not separately identifiable.

  £ million per week

  1977

  1982

  1987

  Public intervention storage

  2

  5

  17

  Disposal

  26

  75

  185

  Source: 1977, 1982 EAGGF Financial Report.

  1987 Supplementary and Amending Budget.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to his Department equal opportunities officer for equal opportunities duties, (b) the other duties

  45
  carried out by the departmental equal opportunities officer, (c) the proportion, and the amount, of the departmental budget which is allocated to equal opportunities work, (d) the number of occasions when the departmental equal opportunities officer meets equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, (e) the guidelines issued to his departmental training officers and equal opportunities officers to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act, and (f) the action taken to facilitate job share, part-time working and parental leave.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My departmental equal opportunities officer is a grade 5 post and does not have an allocation of time as such for equal opportunities duties, but a significent proportion of her duties do fall within the equal opportunities sphere. Apart from administering policy on equal opportunities, the other main duties include: pay and related matters, welfare, staff training, appointments and industrial relations. No separate provision is made in the departmental budget for equal opportunities work. There are many formal and informal occasions when equal opportunities officers meet their colleagues in other Government Departments. No specific guidance has been issued to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act but my Department is guided by the recommendations in the programme of action on women. My Department creates part-time posts and job sharing arrangements wherever practical and those responsible for staffing have been asked to identify posts which are suitable. A notice has been issued to all staff inviting those interested in part-time work or job-sharing to register with their personnel officers. Leave is granted to cover such situations as maternity leave, adoption and the caring of children during school holidays. Special leave may also be granted for "domestic distress" which in some instances could be occasioned by the need to care for children.

  Royal Botanic Gardens (Tree Losses)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will be making a substantial contribution to the royal botanic gardens at Kew to offset the recent loss of old and valuable trees.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement on 21 October, I have already decided to make special additional help available to Kew to assist in the process of recovery and restoration. But much of the value of what has been lost lay in the age, beauty, rarity or historical association of the trees concerned. It will take the passage of much time and a great deal of dedicated work to overcome this. I know that the director and his staff are already making every effort to do so and should like to pay tribute to them. We do not yet have a full assessment against which to judge what additional contribution would be appropriate.

  EC (Food Aid)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals are being considered for further distribution of food aid to the needy by the European Community; what plans have been made for the distribution in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  46
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 October to my hon. Friend, the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is seeking urgent talks with the Governments of the front-line states in southern Africa and with leaders of the opposition to apartheid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have regular contacts with the Governments of the front-line states and also with a wide range of opinion throughout southern Africa. The problems of southern Africa were also discussed at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Vancouver.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new diplomatic steps he is proposing at European Community level in order to help end apartheid in South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall continue, with our European Community partners, to do all we can to promote dialogue between the parties in South Africa leading to fundamental peaceful change. Our goal remains the total abolition of apartheid as soon as possible.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the use of the Seychelles by South Africa to circumvent trading restrictions imposed by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Central America
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part Her Majesty's Government will play in support of the special relationship between the European Economic Community and the Latin American countries of the Rio de Janeiro group.

  Mr. Eggar
  Together with his Community colleagues my right hon. and learned Friend attended the informal meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve arid the Group of Eight on 23 September in New York. We will play a full part in any further contacts. The Foreign Affairs Council held in June 1987 agreed important conclusions concerning the links between the EC and Latin America.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will play an active and positive part in the emergency plans for the economic and political reconstruction of Central America as proposed by the Rio de Janeiro group of countries to the European Community.

  Mr. Eggar
  Together with our Community partners we already play a positive role in assisting Central America and supporting efforts to find a peaceful settlement in the region. EC aid commitments to the region have doubled since 1984 when the EC-Central American dialogue started. The co-operation agreement between the EC and Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
  47
  Nicaragua and Panama, signed in 1985, will be reviewed further at the fourth ministerial meeting to be held early next year. The establishment of peace would facilitate the more effective use of aid resources.

  Namibia
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has lately been achieved in obliging the Government of South Africa to cease the occupation of Namibia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Nations Secretary General and United States Administration are engaged in continuing negotiations for the implementation of the United Nations plan. We support their efforts.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take steps in order to seek to put a stop to the reported damage to Namibian natural resources by British companies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not intervene in the operation of British companies in Namibia. We have no reason to believe that they are behaving irresponsibly. In contrast, considerable damage is being caused to Namibia's natural resources by Soviet and East European over-fishing.

  Chile
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been received from the British embassy in Santiago about recent repression carried out by military or para-military forces in Chile, and the further disappearance of dissenters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago is required to make frequent reports on human rights violations in Chile. It has informed us of the disappearance of five people in early September, and of other incidents and disturbances. We deplore violence from whatever quarter and have made clear to the Chilean Government that restoration of democracy in Chile is the best guarantee of human rights.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report has been received from the British embassy in Santiago on the signing by Chile of treaties against torture, both at the United Nations and at the Organisation of American States.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago has reported that on 23 September Chile signed the United Nations convention against torture and the Inter-American convention on the prevention of torture.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the British embassy in Santiago did not join the explicit and firm expressions of support for the democratic opposition in Chile given during the recent International Parliamentary Assembly held in Santiago.

  Mr. Eggar
  The International Parliamentary Assembly, a privately sponsored gathering of parliamentarians, did not invite Governments. But we have made clear on many occasions our support for the restoration of democracy in 48
  Chile and for the democratic opposition, most recently in the statement by the Twelve of 9 October, the text of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Communications Centre, London
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making as regard trade union membership for those working in the new Government communications centre in London.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 21 October, at column 762.

  Iran
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the effects of an economic embargo on Iran on the peace process in the Gulf.

  Mr. Mellor
  No proposals for an economic embargo of Iran are current, and hence no detailed study of its effects on the prospects for peace has been undertaken. The only embargo which has been proposed in the context of enforcing Security Council resolution 598 is an arms embargo. We have made clear our willingness to see such an embargo against non-complying parties. Our position on more general economic sanctions is well known and we would be extremely sceptical of any such proposal were it to be made.

  Franco-German Military Agreement
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to seek to make the United Kingdom a party to the Franco-German military agreement; what agreement he has made of the implications of the agreement for (a) the United Kingdom defence policy and (b) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The establishment of a Franco-German defence council, recently announced by President Mitterrand, is an extension of the military co-operation provisions of the Elyseé treaty signed between them in 1963. There are no plans for the United Kingdom to become a party to this treaty. We welcome Franco-German co-operation in the defence field in so far as it contributes to the effectiveness of NATO as a whole.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent ministerial visit to India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; and what practical assistance Her Majesty's Government plan to give to India in dealing with the problems arising from the conflict in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mr. Renton), visited India. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan from 3 to 17 September to examine the entry clearance systems operated by British missions in those countries.

  We continue to give full support to the agreement signed on 29 July between India and Sri Lanka designed to bring an end to the tragic conflict in Sri Lanka.
  49
  We have made available £1·5 million for emergency relief and rehabilitation aid in Sri Lanka, and are in consultation with other aid donors with a view to playing a part in further rehabilitation work.

  Falkland Islands Fisheries Zone
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the capital costs of implementing the Falkland Islands fisheries zone in 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  Capital costs incurred to date are approximately £210,000, of which the major elements have been purchase of a harbour patrol boat and communications equipment for the fisheries department in Port Stanley. Costs of implementation of the Falkland Islands conservation zone are estimated at approximately £4 million for a full 12 months.

  President Arias (Peace Prize)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will enter in the Official Report the full text of his message of congratulations to President Arias on his being awarded the Nobel prize for peace.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not our practice to publish the text of such messages: my right hon. and learned Friend congratulated President Arias on the award and reiterated our support for the Guatemala agreement.

  Bangkok
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report his latest estimate of the overall cost, including salaries, of maintaining Her Majesty's embassy and consular services in Bangkok.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the financial year 1986–87, the cost of Her Majesty's embassy in Bangkok was £2 million. Included in this cost was £126,000 for consular work, and L131,000 for entry clearance work.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time it takes for Her Majesty's consulate in Bangkok to issue visas to Thai business men and tourists to visit the United Kingdom; and how the formalities required of British visitors to Thailand compare with those required of Thai citizens seeking to visit the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Average times are not available. Visitors who have previously been to the United Kingdom can normally expect visas within 48 hours of application. First-time visitors are normally interviewed. Depending on seasonal pressure, they may have to wait several weeks for interview. Business men demonstrating a genuinely urgent need to travel are, however, given special consideration. Information about the time taken by, and the procedures of, Thai missions in issuing visas to British visitors are not available.

  Departmental Papers
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Departments' papers have been made available to the public since October 1986.
  50
  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1 October 1986, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—excluding the Overseas Development Administration—has made the following papers available to the public on request:

  Africa

  Namibia: Chronology January—September 1986

  Namibia: Chronology October 1986—June 1987

  Relations between Libya and Sudan in the Qadhafi and—Nimerei Period

  Southern African transport routes

  Americas

  Contadora Chronology: August 1985—October 1986

  Cuba: Party Congress and rectification

  Fishing around the Falklands

  Haiti A Year After Duvalier: A Chronology

  Latin American Regional Organisations

  Asia

  Afghanistan in 1986

  Afghanistan: The Armed Forces

  Afghanistan Chronology: July 1985—October 1986

  Afghanistan: Human Rights

  Afghanistan Report: The Fighting

  Afghanistan Report: Regime's Peace Overtures

  Afghanistan: Soviet Media Coverage

  Afghanistan: United Nations Involvement

  ASEAN: Twenty Years On

  Cambodia in 1986

  General Information on Japan

  General Information on the Republic of Korea

  Refugees from Indochina

  Royal Visits to Hong Kong

  Vietnam: Prospects for Progress

  China

  China's Energy Prospects

  China's External Economic Relations

  China's National Minorities

  General Information on the People's Republic of China

  Women in China

  Europe

  Britain in Luxembourg

  Copenhagen Peace Congress in Retrospect

  East European Energy Prospects

  Poland: Analysis of the Gains and Losses Arising from the Solidarity Period

  The United Kingdom Presidency, July-December 1986

  Vienna CSCE Follow-up Meeting: Background and Chronology

  Near and Middle East

  The Abu Nidhal Group and State Terrorism

  Arab-Israel Chronology: January 1986–February 1987

  The Arab League and Arab Summit Conferences

  Chronology of the Iran-Iraq Conflict

  General Information on Bahrain

  General Information on Oman

  General Information on Qatar

  General Information on Saudi Arabia

  The Hindawi Case: Syrian Connexions

  Soviet Union

  Soviet Bloc Aid to Special Friends

  Soviet Communist Party's Role in External Propaganda

  Soviet Energy Prospects

  Soviet Fishing Off the Developing Countries

  Soviet Foreign Trade

  Survival of Islam in the Soviet Union

  The USSR and Events in the PDRY

  United Nations

  Major United Nations Groups and Major Groupings Relating to the United Nations System

  United Nations Conference on Disarmament and Development

  United Nations Peace-keeping

  Disarmament

  Arms Control and Disarmament: Quarterly Review No. 3

  Arms Control and Disarmament: Quarterly Review No. 4

  51

  Arms Control and Disarmament: Quarterly Review No. 5

  Arms Control and Disarmament: Quarterly Review No. 6

  Twenty Questions on Defence (prepared in conjunction with MOD)

  Economic

  Aid to the Developing World

  World Fisheries

  World Food Supplies

  World Shipping Prospects

  International

  International Response to Drug Abuse

  International Symposium on the Mass Media

  Non-Aligned Summit

  General

  Acid Rain

  Is Intervention Ever Justified?

  Summary of Consular Trends in 1986

  Colonel Robert Lowther
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Colonel Robert Lowther, the former South African military attaché, was expelled from the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 24 July 1987, at column 570.

  Operation Layout
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the nature of Operation Layout.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on 23 October, at column 1095.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, given the steps which the Government of Nicaragua have taken to comply with the Guatemala accord, Her Majesty's Government will now restore full support for economic and financial aid to that country.

  Mr. Eggar
  Aid is directed as far as possible to the poorest countries in the world and those with which we have traditional links. Nicaragua is in neither category but has continued to benefit from EC aid of which the United Kingdom contributes some 20 per cent. We also co-finance small development projects with British voluntary agencies and contribute to humanitarian relief work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sheep and Lambs
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost to public funds of compensation to farmers arising out of the recently imposed restrictions on movement of sheep and lambs in certain areas of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is estimated that in 1987–88 the cost of compensation to sheep farmers in Northern Ireland will 52
  amount to about £50,000. For the present, payments will be met by way of repayable advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund, and parliamentary approval will be sought for the necessary Supplementary Estimates.

  Castelwellan Factory
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government intend to provide industrial accommodation in the Castlewellan area of County Down.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Industrial Development Board has retained ownership of a two-acre site beside the former Moss Lane factory in Castlewellan. The IDB would consider the provision of accommodation for a specific employment-related project accepted for selective financial assistance. The site is also available to any property developer wishing to construct factory units for leasing to small businesses.

TRANSPORT

  Parachuting
  Miss Widdecombe
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many fatalities have occurred as a result of parachuting accidents involving civilian jumpers in the last 10 years;

  (2) how many parachuting accidents resulting in serious injuries and involving civilian jumpers have occurred in the last 10 years;

  (3) if the Government are planning to seek the voluntary agreement of charities not to use amateur and inexperienced participants for fund-raising parachute jumps; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if the Government are planning to introduce legislation to implement and enforce higher minimum standards of training before members of parachute clubs are allowed to make their first jumps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Details of accidents involving civilian jumpers are available only for the last six years. During that period there were 23 fatalities, a further 144 serious accidents, and over 1 million jumps. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety of sport parachuting in the United Kingdom. It has reviewed safety and operating procedures with the British Parachuting Association and will be implementing improvements in the light of the recent fatal accident at Thruxton. The occasion on which a parachute jump is made has no bearing on the inherent risks of the activity and my right hon. Friend sees no case for introducing special restrictions on participation at charitable or fund raising events.

  M1 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Minister for Transport whether he will take steps to avoid the carrying out of roadworks on the M1 between London and Leeds during peak holiday traffic periods.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Roadworks involving lane closures on motorways and trunk roads are suspended during peak holiday periods wherever possible. It is not always possible to avoid having some roadworks at these
  53
  times. Sometimes it is more inconvenient for road users if large contraflows are removed during peak holiday periods and then replaced because of the additional traffic restrictions required and the consequent overall increase in time taken to complete the works.

  Any emergency repairs must go ahead.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Minister for Transport how many man-hours he estimates to have been lost due to delays caused by roadworks on the M 1 during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Records are not kept of total delays at M1 roadworks. On major lane rental schemes—costing over £0·5 million—delay costs are assessed on a daily basis. During the 12 months to 30 September 1987 10 major maintenance schemes were carried out by lane rental (compared with four under conventional contracts). The total site occupation was 680 days resulting in delay costs of £15 million. Lane rental saved an estimated 250 days and about £7 million compared with the time and resources which would have been spent had all contracts been on a conventional basis.

  Local Authority Transport Companies
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions he has issued a dispensation to local authority councillors to speak and vote on matters concerning local authority transport companies; for which local authorities these dispensations were authorised; and if he will itemise in each case the length of time from application to authorisation.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Dispensations have been given by the Secretary of State (under section 74(4) and (5) of the Transport Act 1985) on four occasions to local authority councillors who were also directors of the public transport company controlled by their authority, to discuss and vote on certain matters concerning the company. The details are as follows:

  Authorities given dispensations

  Number of working days between application being made and issue of dispensation

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  136

  Langbaurgh Borough Council

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  3

  Portsmouth City Council

  4

  Nottingham City Council

  4

  1 Joint application.

  Motor Cycles (Leg Protectors)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of fitting leg protectors to motor bikes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Consultation on a draft specification for leg protectors is at an early stage. We are seeking expert comment, especially from motorcycle manufacturers. This may influence the final form of the specification. The cost of protectors will vary according to 54
  the type of motorcycle, its equipment, the manufacturer's design and production methods. I would expect the additional cost to be usually in the range 3 to 10 per cent. of the cost of a new motorcycle.

  Casualty rates for motorcyclists are far higher than for any other group of road users. A large number of serious injuries suffered by motorcyclists are to their legs, often resulting in lengthy hospital treatment. We believe that correctly designed leg protectors will significantly reduce these injuries.

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

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  (a) The Department's equal opportunities officer also serves the Department of the Environment. He is a grade 5 head of division. No specific proportion of his time is allocated to any of his functions. He is supported by five staff who work full-time on equal opportunities matters and have no other responsibilities.

  (b) The equal opportunities officer has wide ranging responsibilities for personnel management policies and services to staff.

  (c) Every member of staff with management responsibilities is involved in the implementation of equal opportunities policy. It is not possible to assign a specific cost to the work.

  (d) The equal opportunities officer and his staff have frequent meetings, both formal and informal, with their counterparts from other Government Departments.

  (e) No specific guidelines have been issued.

  (f) All requests for part-time working and job sharing are met wherever possible. Special leave arrangements exist to help staff deal with domestic responsibilities. Explanatory material has been published and made available to all staff.

  I have regular meetings with the equal opportunities staff.

  Tutbury Bypass
  Mr. Lawrence
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive his inspector's report on the public inquiry into the proposed Tutbury bypass.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspector's report was received on 5 October. It is now being considered. I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to introduce legislation on, and a nationality

  55
  test for, the beneficial ownership of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom and dependencies as recommended by the working party which reported to him in the autumn of 1986.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 24 July.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to amend the regulations relating to safety matters on the carrying of immersion suits on United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department plan to introduce shortly regulations to implement specific provisions for the carriage of safety equipment on fishing vessels prescribed in the Safety at Sea Act 1986. In addition requirements for safety equipment generally on fishing vessels including immersion suits amongst other items is under examination by the Department in consultation with the fishing industry as part of a review of the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  My Department is reviewing the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 in consultation with the fishing industry.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with the representatives of the owners of United Kingdom and registered fishing vessels regarding the problem of noise levels of fishing vessel engines.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No recent discussions have taken place with the fishing industry on the problem of noise.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if his Department has held recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority and commercial airlines regarding the removal of over-wing exit doors on Boeing 767 aircraft during emergency drill training by the crews of those aircraft; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if his Department has held recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority and commercial airlines regarding the carriage of smoke-hood protection for all crew members on United Kingdom registered commercial aircraft;

  (3) if his Department has held recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding passenger and crew safety, training and emergency-drill procedures in United Kingdom-registered commercial passenger aircraft; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) if his Department has had recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding the practice of storage of waste and waste disposal bags in passenger aircraft lavatories; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if his Department has held recent discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority regarding crew work hours and on-board rest periods on commercial passenger aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
  56
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. Civil aviation safety regulation is wholly the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the necessary technical competence in these matters. I will drew the attention of the chairman of the authority to the hon. Member's inquiries.

  Passenger Aircraft
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation governing the carriage of hand baggage by crews and passengers on United Kingdom registered commercial passenger aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Legislation governing the carriage of baggage in the passenger compartment of a United Kingdom registered public transport aircraft is already contained in article 34(2)(e)(ii) of the Air Navigation Order 1985 (S.I., No. 1985/1643).

  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to provide work for British Rail Engineering Ltd. over the next 12 months.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The amount of work secured by BREL is (as with most businesses) dependant on how successful they are in competing for whatever business is available. The British Railways Board plans to spend £1 billion on locomotives and rolling stock over the next five years. This provides the opportunity for substantial business for the railway supply industry although inevitably this will mean less heavy maintenance work. The Government will continue to support BREL's export efforts.

  Heathrow (Light Aircraft)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to limit the number of light planes using Heathrow by placing a lower limit on the number of seats per aircraft which can use Heathrow except in emergency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the recent incident at Heathrow in which a light aircraft is alleged to have crossed the path of an airliner on take-off. As the hon. Member may know, that incident is under investigation by the CAA; I shall ask the chairman to write to him in due course.

  Unmanned Railway Stations
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred at unmanned railway stations in Scotland for each of the last five years; and how many of these have been fatal.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Accidents that occur on the railways in Great Britain are reportable to the Department as prescribed by Statutory Instruments. This does not require the railways to declare whether or not an incident occurred at a manned station or otherwise. Accidents resulting in minor injury and not involving the movement of a train, eg. slipping, tripping, falling accidents, are reportable by bulk return only as numbers with no details of location.
  57
  Over the last five years, the accident data for movement and non-movement accidents on the Scottish region of British Railways are:

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Fatal

  2

  2

  3

  2

  1

  Major

  6

  1

  3

  5

  11

  Minor

  327

  402

  422

  477

  362

  1 Including September.

  Only one of the fatal accidents occurred at a station; this was manned. The Scottish region has advised that, for 1987, none of the 11 major injuries reported occurred at unmanned stations but 32 of the 362 minor injuries did so.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of assaults at unmanned railway stations in Scotland have been reported for each of the last five years; in how many of these cases prosecutions have followed; and how many convictions were obtained.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I understand from the British Transport Police (BTP) that the total number of assaults on trains and stations in Scotland, and the number of persons prosecuted, were as follows:

  Year

  Number reported

  Persons prosecuted

  1982

  269

  137

  1983

  323

  169

  1984

  362

  157

  1985

  352

  139

  1986

  411

  165

  Separate records of convictions, and of the number of assaults at unmanned railway stations in Scotland, are not maintained by BTP.

  Electricity (BR)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he is having with British Rail regarding the effects on its electricity supplies of the privatisation of electricity, generation and supply system;

  (2) what representations he has received from community organisations, consumer associations, and the general public regarding the effects of the privatisation of the electricity production and distribution system on the costs of the electricity supplies to the railways system;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the implications for the efficiency of British Rail of the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have received no representations on this matter. It is in the first instance for the Railways Board to consider the possible implications for the operation of the railway.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on behalf of air traffic controllers calling for an inquiry into air traffic services and whether he has any plans to set up such an inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers for an independent inquiry into the infrastructure,58
  organisation and efficiency of air traffic services in the United Kingdom. He was not persuaded that an inquiry of the kind suggested by the guild was justified.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will intervene to halt the practice of British Rail transporting nuclear materials through Morningside in Edinburgh, South constituency to and from Torness.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The regulations which control the transport of radioactive materials require full protection to be built into the design of the containers so that the materials do not present a danger, even in the event of a severe accident. The choice of routes used is not therefore dependent on safety considerations.

  Fallan Rescue Harness
  Mr. David Mars
  hall asked the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation has been made of the Fallan rescue harness and sling for use by emergency services in road traffic accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume the question relates to harness equipment developed by a fire officer of the Strathclyde brigade. I am aware of this officer's initiative and I am at present seeking further information. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reported incidents at Hunterston nuclear power station in 1987 to date, indicating (a) in which cases the alarm was sounded and (b) in which cases the alarm failed to he sounded.

  Mr. Lang
  The nuclear installations inspectorate's site incident register at Hunterston nuclear power station records a total of 50 incidents between 1 January and 14 October 1987. The date and nature of the incidents are shown in the tables below. The circumstances under which the nuclear site emergency alert alarm is required to be sounded are specified in the Hunterston emergency plan; in none of the incidents did these conditions arise.

  Hunterston 'A' Power Station

  Summary of site incident register entries:

  1 January 1987 to 14 October 1987

  Date

  Nature of incident

  17 January 1987

  Failure of charge machine vessel safety valve flange led to minor release of CO2, which was detected and alarmed by the Reactor 1 vault CO2 detection system.

  28 January 1987

  A passing valve in the CO2 plant caused a rise in the reactor pressure of 6·4 psi in 35 minutes.

  10 April 1987

  Contamination detected on Reactor 2 pipebridge. Maximum activity KM) counts per second (cps).

  59

  Date

  Nature of incident

  27 April 1987

  Contamination detected at entry to Solid Active Waste Building. Maximum activity 400 cps.

  8 May 1987

  Contamination detected on charge machine rail near Solid Active Waste Building. Maximum activity 600 cps.

  20 May 1987

  Contamination detected on Health Physics instrument used at Reactor 2 Separation Room barrier. Maximum activity 300 cps.

  9 June 1987

  Spread of contaminated dust occurred when emptying Reactor 1 Separating Room cyclone filter. One person contaminated with maximum activity of 100 cps.

  9 June 1987

  Contamination detected on Health Physics instrument used during Reactor 1 Separating Room cyclone filter change. Maximum activity 50 cps.

  14 June 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 25 cps.

  16 June 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 10 cps.

  23 June 1987

  Personnel contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 300 cps.

  23 June 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 425 cps.

  24 June 1987

  Contamination detected at barrier to Reactor 2 gas dryer. Maximum activity 200 cps.

  30 June 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 15 cps.

  3 July 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IMP7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 50 cps.

  6 July 1987

  Clothing contamination detected. Maximum activity 100 cps.

  6 July 1987

  Contamination detected on scaffolding below SRU entry manhole. Maximum activity 500 cps.

  9 July 1987

  Failure of a fuel element in Reactor 1 required a reduction in power whilst preparations were made for its removal.

  10 July 1987

  Personnel nasal contamination detected. Contamination level of 14·7 Becquerels.

  17 July 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 Personnel Monitor. Maximum activity 1000 cps.

  22 July 1987

  Contamination detected at barrier of Lightly Active Waste Facility. Maximum activity 200 cps.

  22 July 1987

  Piece of magnox found on cooling pond roadway. Maximum activity 4000cps.

  22 July 1987

  Contamination detected on roadway adjacent to 5A gas circulator. Magnox activity 1800 cps.

  27 July 1987

  Contamination detected at HP drum level of 2B SRU. Maximum activity 350 cps.

  27 July 1987

  Clothing contamination detected at IPM7 personnel monitor. Maximum activity 200 cps.

  10 August 1987

  Leakage from tritium bottle during transit.

  12 August 1987

  Surface contamination found on 2B SRU pipework.

  16 August 1987

  Failure of rotameter on BCD system.

  5 September 1987

  Shortage of cooling water, due to an ingress of seaweed into the CW system, led to Reactor 1 being manually tripped.

  5 September 1987

  Shortage of cooling water, due to an ingress of seaweed into the CW system, led to Reactor 2 being manually tripped.

  10 September 1987

  Spread of contamination occured when emptying cyclone filter bag.

  60

  Hunterston 'B' Power Station

  Summary of site incident register entries:

  1 January 1987 to 14 October 1987

  Date

  Nature of incident

  13 February 1987

  Failure of coupling on CO2 service supply hose on charge machine.

  16 February 1987

  Clean CO2 from a vaporiser was transferred to the deaerator via the domestic steam system because of a leak in the steam heating pipework at the vaporiser and another in the deaerator heating coil.

  17 February 1987

  Problems in releasing the charge machine grab from a control rod after its removal from the reactor.

  9 March 1987

  Failure of both IGV drive motors on gas circulator 4A2.

  18 March 1987

  Broken wire on Reactor 3 channel 3 pulse counter had caused the channel to trip.

  5 April 1987

  Trip of 4C quadrant on low lubricating oil pressure.

  7 April 1987

  Fire due to an electrical fault on R3 ESS Short Break Sub-board 3B.

  7 April 1987

  Trip of 3A quadrant due to board fault in incident of 7 April 1987 above.

  8 April 1987

  Contamination detected on shock absorber of road transport flask E67A. Maximum activity 30 cps.

  10 April 1987

  Clean CO2 leak from joint on No. 6 vaporiser.

  17 April 1987

  Loss of vacuum due to inadvertent opening of air suction valves on vacuum maintaining unit.

  17 April 1987

  Problem with the cooling pond skip transporter led to the tilting of a skip.

  12 May 1987

  Closing of fuel stringer gag instead of opening.

  12 May 1987

  Small leak of reactor CO2 from BCD sample valve on channel R3–2060.

  11 June 1987

  Trip of 4D quadrant on very low lubricating oil levelled to unit trip.

  7 August 1987

  Trip of unit 3 due to turbine governor problems.

  15 September 1987

  Reactor 4 gas leakage over a period of 18 minutes due to the partial failure of a joint in the gas treatment plant area. Source of reactor CO2 leak isolated, and reactor continued operating.

  16 September 1987

  Small fire in R3 oil bund of 3C quadrant.

  3 October 1987

  Trip of unit 4 when control rod fell into core.

  Rates
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  £

  Kyle and Carrick

  1978–79

  161

  —

  327

  —

  1979–80

  179

  11

  311

  -5

  1980–81

  233

  30

  342

  10

  1981–82

  337

  45

  450

  32

  1982–83

  398

  18

  496

  10

  1983–84

  408

  3

  487

  -2

  1984–85

  433

  6

  495

  2

  1985–86

  474

  9

  510

  3

  1986–87

  501

  6

  524

  3

  1987–88

  578

  15

  578

  10

  61

  Average Domestic Rate Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  £

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1978–79

  112

  —

  227

  —

  1979–80

  125

  12

  217

  -4

  1980–81

  169

  35

  248

  14

  1981–82

  236

  40

  315

  27

  1982–83

  270

  15

  337

  7

  1983–84

  275

  2

  328

  -3

  1984–85

  289

  5

  330

  1

  1985–86

  346

  20

  373

  13

  1986–87

  370

  7

  387

  4

  1987–88

  430

  16

  430

  11

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review published by CIPFA.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the percentage increase over the previous year in the domestic rates bill in the Edinburgh, South constituency for each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2)if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Edinburgh, South constituency repriced for inflation for each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (3)if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Edinburgh, South constituency for each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the rate support grant paid to Aberdeen city district council in each of the financial years since 1978, expressed in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms expressed at 1986–87 prices; and what percentage of total spending in each year this represents.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  R.S.G. cash

  R.S.G. 1986–87

  Percentage of expenditure

  Cost terms

  £'000

  £'000

  Aberdeen

  1978–79

  3,193

  6,213

  36

  1979–80

  3,911

  6,511

  36

  1980–81

  4,968

  6,976

  35

  1981–82

  5,358

  6,852

  34

  1982–83

  4,916

  5,865

  27

  1983–84

  5,414

  6,175

  26

  1984–85

  5,505

  6,014

  25

  1985–86

  3,523

  3,629

  14

  1986–87

  2,749

  2,749

  11

  1987–88

  4,181

  4,001

  13

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 are final. Those for 1984–85 to 1987–88 will be varied following the next rate support grant order. The figures reflect selective and general abatement of grant, except that for 1987–88 no adjustment has been made for grant penalties since they will be restored for authorities which bring their expenditure down to guidelines on outturn.

  2. The G.D.P. deflator has been used to convert to 1987–88 prices. The expenditure figures used in the final column are those for relevant expenditure including loan charges.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the constituency of Falkirk, West for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing in each case the percentage change between years.
  62
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Glasgow, Maryhill for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Dunfermline, West constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case cash, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the areas covered by Dunfermline, East constituency, repriced for inflation for each year since 1977.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage increase over the previous year in the domestic rates bill in the areas covered by Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1977.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the rate support grant figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the rate support figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (3) if he will give the percentage change in rate support grant over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987.

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

  Scotland

  Rule support grant cash

  Change

  Rate support grant 1987–88 cost terms

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  1978–79

  1,041

  —

  2,116

  1979–80

  1,195

  15

  2.079

  1980–81

  1,451

  21

  2,129

  1981–82

  1,543

  6

  2,062

  1982–83

  1,633

  6

  2,036

  1983–84

  1,718

  5

  2,048

  1984–85

  1,672

  -3

  1,908

  1985–86

  1,700

  2

  1,830

  1986–87

  1,664

  -2

  1,739

  1987–88

  1,897

  14

  1,897

  Notes:

  (1) The figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 are final. Those for 1984–85 to 1987–88 will be varied following the next rate support grant order. The figures reflect selective and general abatement of grant, except that for 1987–88 no adjustment has been made for grant penalties since they will be restored for authorities which bring their expenditure down to guidelines on outturn.

  (2) The G.D.P. deflator has been used to convert to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the rate support grant figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the rate support grant figure, repriced for inflation, for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (3) if he will give the percentage change in rate support grant over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the following table:
  63

  R.S.G. Cash

  Change

  R.S.G. 1987–88 Cost terms

  Edinburgh

  £'000

  Per cent.

  £'000

  1978–79

  6,806

  —

  13,838

  1979–80

  7,547

  11

  13,129

  1980–81

  10,504

  39

  15,413

  1981–82

  11,489

  9

  15,354

  1982–83

  10,541

  -8

  13,141

  1983–84

  11,376

  8

  13,558

  1984–85

  6,601

  -42

  7,536

  1985–86

  9,567

  45

  10,299

  1986–87

  7,405

  -23

  7,738

  1987–88

  12,513

  69

  12,513

  Notes

  1. The figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 are final. Those for 1984–85 to 1987–88 will be varied following the next rate support grant order. The figures reflect selective and general abatement of grant, except that for 1987–88 no adjustment has been made for grant penalties since they will be restored for authorities which bring their expenditure down to guidelines on outturn.

  2. The G.D.P. deflator has been used to convert to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give Edinburgh district council's rate
  support grant figure as a proportion of the total housing support grant figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1985.

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

  Rate support grant as a percentage of Scotland housing support grant—Edinburgh

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  4

  1980–81

  5

  1981–82

  7

  1982–83

  10

  1983–84

  16

  1984–85

  10

  1985–86

  15

  1 Information not readily available.

  Notes: The rate support grant figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 are final. Those for 1984–85 to 1987–88 will be varied following the next rate support grant order. The figures reflect selective and general abatement of grant, except that for 1987–88 no adjustment has been made for grant penalties since they will be restored for authorities which bring their expenditure down to guidelines on outturn.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the East Kilbride constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, showing in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the attached table.

  East Kilbride District Council

  Average Domestic Rate-Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 Prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  137

  —

  279

  —

  1979–80

  153

  12

  266

  -4

  1980–81

  214

  40

  314

  18

  1981–82

  292

  36

  390

  24

  1982–83

  337

  15

  420

  8

  1983–84

  340

  1

  405

  -4

  1984–85

  361

  6

  412

  2

  64

  East Kilbride District Council

  Average Domestic Rate-Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 Prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  442

  22

  476

  15

  1986–87

  479

  8

  501

  5

  1987–88

  563

  18

  563

  12

  Notes:

  Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Dundee East constituency for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Dumbarton constituency for each year since 1979 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

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

  Dumbarton District Council

  Average Domestic Rate-Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 Prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  163

  331

  1979–80

  174

  7

  303

  -9

  1980–81

  252

  45

  370

  22

  1981–82

  337

  34

  450

  22

  1982–83

  387

  15

  482

  7

  1983–84

  381

  -2

  454

  -6

  1984–85

  411

  8

  469

  3

  1985–86

  489

  19

  526

  12

  1986–87

  524

  7

  548

  4

  1987–88

  582

  11

  582

  6

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Dundee, West constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Cathcart constituency for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many properties in Scotland used as residences at the present time are wholly or partially exempt from paying rates; and for what reasons.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between the years.
  65
  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Average Domestic Rate-Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 Prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  133

  270

  1979–80

  143

  8

  249

  -8

  1980–81

  195

  36

  286

  15

  1981–82

  295

  51

  394

  38

  1982–83

  343

  16

  428

  8

  1983–84

  345

  1

  411

  -4

  1984–85

  362

  5

  413

  1

  1985–86

  420

  16

  452

  9

  1986–87

  458

  9

  479

  6

  1987–88

  544

  19

  544

  14

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average domestic rates bill in the city of Glasgow for each year since 1978–79 in cash terms and in real terms, taking 1978–79 as the base year, and showing in each case the percentage change between years.

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

  Glasgow District Council

  Average domestic rate hill

  Percentage change

  1978–79 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  per cent.

  £

  per cent.

  1978–79

  129

  —

  129

  —

  1979–80

  138

  7

  118

  -8

  1980–81

  193

  40

  139

  18

  1981–82

  270

  40

  177

  27

  1982–83

  321

  19

  197

  11

  1983–84

  324

  1

  190

  -4

  1984–85

  340

  5

  191

  1

  1985–86

  436

  28

  231

  21

  1986–87

  462

  6

  237

  3

  1987–88

  511

  11

  251

  6

  Notes:

  Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1978–79 prices.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Paisley, South constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the constituency of Cunninghame, South for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Livingston for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Monklands, East for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.
  66
  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland as a whole for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage charge between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table except for the figures for Greenock and Port Glasgow which are not held centrally.

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  Strathclyde Region

  1978–79

  139

  —

  283

  —

  1979–80

  154

  11

  268

  -5

  1980–81

  210

  36

  308

  15

  1981–82

  291

  39

  389

  26

  1982–83

  343

  18

  428

  10

  1983–84

  347

  1

  414

  -3

  1984–85

  366

  5

  418

  1

  1985–86

  446

  22

  480

  15

  1986–87

  476

  7

  497

  4

  1987–88

  536

  13

  536

  8

  Scotland

  1978–79

  132

  —

  268

  —

  1979–80

  149

  13

  259

  -3

  1980–81

  199

  34

  292

  13

  1981–82

  272

  37

  363

  24

  1982–83

  310

  14

  386

  6

  1983–84

  310

  0

  369

  -4

  1984–85

  328

  6

  374

  1

  1985–86

  392

  20

  422

  13

  1986–87

  417

  6

  436

  3

  1987–88

  480

  15

  480

  10

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rate bill in Paisley, North for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Renfrew West and Inverclyde for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection, and (g) 70 per cent. collection.

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will required to employ in order to complete registration on the

  67
  community charge register in Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley; and if he will estimate the annual extra costs involved.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his proposals to ensure that residents in properties liable to the collective community charge who have already paid their personal community charge elsewhere do not pay twice.

  Mr. Lang
  Section 11(16) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 makes provision for the repayment of sums paid by way of collective community charge contribution in these and comparable circumstances.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Dunfermline, West constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Dunfermline, West constituency.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Dundee, East constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will estimate the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Dundee, East constituency.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Dundee, West constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Dundee, West constituency.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on
  68
  the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average domestic rates bill in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms showing in each case, the percentage change between the years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Midlothian constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

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

  Midlothian District Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  152

  —

  309

  —

  1979–80

  181

  19

  315

  2

  1980–81

  263

  45

  386

  23

  1981–82

  377

  43

  504

  31

  1982–83

  353

  -6

  440

  -13

  1983–84

  325

  -8

  387

  -12

  1984–85

  365

  12

  417

  8

  1985–86

  425

  16

  458

  10

  1986–87

  441

  4

  461

  1

  1987–88

  515

  17

  515

  12

  Note:

  Source—Rating Review.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Midlothian constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Midlothian constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Hamilton constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of personal community charge in the Hamilton constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection, and (g) 70 per cent. collection.
  69
  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Hamilton constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Hamilton District Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  149

  —

  303

  —

  1979–80

  165

  11

  287

  -5

  1980–81

  219

  33

  321

  12

  1981–82

  317

  45

  424

  32

  1982–83

  380

  20

  474

  12

  1983–84

  369

  -3

  440

  -7

  1984–85

  379

  3

  433

  -2

  1985–86

  479

  26

  516

  19

  1986–87

  516

  8

  539

  5

  1987–88

  557

  8

  557

  3

  Notes:

  Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Kilmarnock and Loudoun for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) in real terms, showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

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

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun District Council

  Average domestic rate bill

  Percentage change

  1987–88 prices

  Percentage change

  £

  per cent.

  £

  per cent.

  1978–79

  129

  262

  1979–80

  148

  15

  257

  -2

  1980–81

  200

  35

  293

  14

  1981–82

  272

  36

  363

  24

  1982–83

  321

  18

  400

  10

  1983–84

  327

  2

  390

  -3

  1984–85

  348

  6

  397

  2

  1985–86

  402

  16

  433

  9

  1986–87

  437

  9

  457

  6

  1987–88

  484

  11

  484

  6

  Notes:

  1. Source—Rating Review.

  2. The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Kilmarnock and Loudoun in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
  70
  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Central Fife constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration of the community charge register of all adults in the constituency of Central Fife.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Central Fife constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage charge between years.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the average domestic rates bill in the constituency of North Aberdeen for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish in the Official Report the predicted level of the personal community charge in the constituency of North Aberdeen in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection, (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) how many numbers of staff will be required by the community registration officer in order to complete the registration of all adults in (a) Aberdeen and (b) the constituency of North Aberdeen; and what the extra cost will be.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland ( 1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the constituency of Falkirk, West in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 80 per cent. collection and (d) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the constituency of Falkirk, West.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection, and (vii) 70 per cent collection;
  71
  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Glasgow, Maryhill.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Glasgow, Hillhead constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a)100 per cent. collection, (b)95 per cent. collection, (c)90 per cent. collection, (d)85 per cent. collection, (e)80 per cent. collection, (f)75 per cent. collection and (g)70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Glasgow, Hillhead constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted amount of the personal community charge in Edinburgh Central to be collected in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Lothian region.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the estimated cost for the introduction of the community charge for each region, and the percentage of it taken up by salaries, office equipment, interest and capital repayments;

  (2) if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency for each year since 1978 in (a)cash terms and (b)real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage of the cost of introducing the community charge which will be paid for by central Government.

  Mr. Lang
  Provision for local authority current expenditure provision in 1988–89 includes £9 million for the cost of introducing the community charge and £3 million for the cost of related changes to housing benefit arrangements. Provision for subsequent years will reflect the cost of collecting the community charge in the same way as for the cost of rate collection at present. Local 72
  authority expenditure is supported by rate support grant from central Government. In 1989–90 this will be replaced by revenue support grant. Both of these are grants in aid of the general revenues of authorities and are not hypothecated to individual items of expenditure.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what means eligibility for improvement and repairs grants will be decided following introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 makes no change in the statutory criteria for eligibility for these grants. Section 5 to the Act makes provision for the construction, with effect from 1 April 1989, of references in enactments to the gross annual value, net annual value or rateable value of any property which constitutes domestic subjects and for the provision of a certificate by the assessor where necessary.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the number of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register for all adults in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a) 100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c) 90 per cent. collection, (d) 85 per cent. collection, (e) 80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Dunfermline, West constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency for each year since 1978 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, showing in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.
  73
  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency in the financial year 1989 to 1990, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency for each year in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms, showing in each case the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Edinburgh, South constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in areas covered by Dunfermline, East constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (1) 100 per cent. collection, (2) 95 per cent. collection, (3) 90 per cent. collection, (4) 85 per cent. collection, (5) 80 per cent. collection, (6) 75 per cent. collection, and (7) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the East Kilbride constituency;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the constituency of East Kilbride in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (1) 100 per cent. collection, (2) 95 per cent. collection, (3) 90 per cent. collection, (4) 85 per cent. collection, (5) 80 per cent. collection, (6) 75 per cent. collection and (7) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Dundee, East constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of
  74
  the personal community charge in Dumbarton constituency in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Dumbarton constituency.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Cathcart constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many changes in the community charge register he estimates will be needed each year after 1990 in order to ensure that it is always accurate.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimates.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many extra staff each regional and island council has told him will be necessary to compile the community charge register;

  (2) if he has received from each regional and island council its estimate of the costs of compiling and maintaining the community charge register.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received this information from each regional and islands council.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his proposals to ensure that residents in properties liable to the collective community charge who are entitled to a rebate do not pay the full cost.

  Mr. Lang
  People resident in properties liable to the collective community charge will be liable to pay the landlord a collective community charge contribution at the same daily level as the personal community charge for the area. Rebates will be available for the collective community charge contribution at the same level as for the personal community charge.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of foreign nationals living in Scotland who will be liable to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the community charge liability of (i) foreign service men serving in Scotland and (ii) foreign diplomatic staff resident in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  In fulfilment of the NATO status of forces agreement, visiting forces are at present exempted from
  75
  rates, as well as from British income tax and various other forms of taxation. Some contribution towards the rate liability of accommodation occupied by visiting forces is, however, made by the relevant Governments. Diplomats are in a similar position. The Government are now considering what arrangements should be made about payment in respect of visiting forces and diplomats under the community charge system.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland he estimates will be liable to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Precise figures are not available, but it is broadly estimated that about 10,000 students in Scotland may fall into this category. All students attending full-time courses of education in Scotland will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities in England and Wales and from student organisations about his understanding that students' courses in Scottish institutions of further or higher education will receive grants that will fully compensate them for their community charge payments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the National Union of Students in Scotland and from various student representative councils. He has received no representations from local authorities in England and Wales on this issue.

  Students in Scotland whose courses meet the definition of "a full-time course of education", which will be prescribed in regulations, will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether students from foreign countries studying in Scotland will be liable to pay the community charge in full; and what steps he has taken to ensure that all institutions of further and higher education inform all such students coming to study after 1989 of this liability.

  Mr. Forsyth
  Students from outwith the United Kingdom studying at Scottish educational institutions will be deemed to be resident in Scotland and will be liable to pay the community charge. If the courses which they are following meet the definition of "a full-time course of education", which will be prescribed in regulations, their liability will be limited to 20 per cent.

  It will be for the institutions concerned to determine how best they might incorporate this information in the general advice about Scotland which they commonly offer to such students.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from foreign countries undertaking courses at Scottish institutions of further or higher education he estimates will be liable to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that in Session 1985–86, the latest date for which figures are available, there were some 8,462 students from outwith the United Kingdom studying at institutions of further or higher education in Scotland.

  All students from outwith the United Kingdom who are deemed to be resident in Scotland will be liable to pay the
  76
  community charge, but if their courses meet the definition of "a full-time course of education" (which will be prescribed in regulations) their liability will be limited to 20 per cent.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what definition of the term severely mentally handicapped he proposes to use; and when he intends to issue guidelines for the determination of those who will be exempt from the community charge under this definition.

  Mr. Lang
  The exemption from personal community charge liability for the severely mentally handicapped will apply to persons suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of the mind which includes severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.

  A consultation paper on the procedures for identifying these people was issued by the Scottish Office on 22 October.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Livingston;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Livingston in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (a)100 per cent. collection, (b)95 per cent. collection, (c)90 per cent. collection, (d)85 per cent. collection, (e)80 per cent. collection, (f)75 per cent. collection and (g)70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the Paisley, South constituency in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a)100 per cent. collection, (b)95 per cent. collection, (c)90 per cent. collection, (d)85 per cent. collection, (e)80 per cent. collection, (f)75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Paisley, South constituency.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the constituency of Cunninghame, South in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a)100 per cent. collection, (b) 95 per cent. collection, (c)90 per cent. collection, (d)85 per cent. collection, (e)80 per cent. collection, (f)75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the constituency of Cunninghame, South.

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the city of Glasgow in the year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (a)100 per cent. collection, (b)95 per cent. collection, (c)90 per cent. collection, (d)85 per cent. collection, (e)80 per cent. collection, (f) 75 per cent. collection and (g) 70 per cent. collection, and assuming in each case that the levels of

  77
  expenditure by Glasgow district and Strathclyde regional council in 1989–90 and the same in real terms as those budgeted for 1987–88.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Monklands, East in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Monklands, East.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in the financial year 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of premises in Scotland in relation to which payment of the standard community charge will he made.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland as a whole in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of staff that the community charge registration scheme will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b)Strathclyde Region and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary for State for Scotland what is his best estimate of the average payment of the poll tax to be levied up on each adult in Inverclyde in each of the years (a) 1989–90, (b) 1990–91, and (c) 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  My right and learned Friend has made no such estimate.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary for State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the predicted
  78
  level of the personal community charge in Paisley, North in the financial years 1989–90 calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection. (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  (2) if he will publish an estimate of the number of staff that the community charge registration office will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Renfew district.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary for State for Scotland which sources of information about citizens and their families will be available for scrutiny by civil servants for the purpose of applying the community charge in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Civil servants will not be involved in the registration, levying or collection procedures for the community charge system in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary for State for Scotland which sources of information about citizens and their families will be available for scrutiny by civil servants for the purpose of applying the community charge in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Civil servants will not be involved in the registration, levying or collection procedures for the community charge system in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary for State for Scotland what will he the nature and estimated amount of funding given to local authorities in Scotland for the purpose of collecting the proposed community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  Provision for local authority current expenditure provision in 1988–89 includes £9 million for the cost of introducing the community charge and £3 million for the cost of related changes to housing benefit arrangements. Provision for subsequent years will reflect the cost of collecting the community charge in the same way as for the cost of rate collection at present. Local authority expenditure is supported by rate support grant from central Government. In 1989–90 this will be replaced by revenue support grant. Both of these are grants in aid of the general revenues of authorities and are not hypothecated to individual items of expenditure.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who will pay for the extra equipment and staff that the local authorities will require to administer the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  Provision for local authority current expenditure provision in 1988–89 includes £9 million for the cost of introducing the community charge and £3 million for the cost of related changes to housing benefit arrangements. Provision for subsequent years will reflect the cost of collecting the community charge in the same way as for the cost of rate collection at present. Local authority expenditure is supported by rate support grant from central Government. In 1989–90 this will be replaced by revenue support grant. Both of these are grants in aid of the general revenues of authorities and are not hypothecated to individual items of expenditure

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if an elderly parent is being cared for at home, whether he or she will have to pay the poll tax.
  79
  Mr. Lang
  A person in this position who is solely or mainly resident at home will be liable to pay the personal community charge. A system of rebates of up to 80 per cent. of personal community charge liability will be available for those on low incomes and the levels of income support—which will replace supplementary benefit in April 1988—will be raised to take account of the average minimum contribution to the charge.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what help will be given to those who are currently on family income supplement to pay the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  People in receipt of family credit—which will replace family income supplement on 1 April 1988—will be eligible, in appropriate cases, for rebates of up to 80 per cent. of their personal community charge liability.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the Government's estimates of the percentage of those eligible to pay poll tax who will do so.

  Mr. Lang
  I am confident that the systems provided for by the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 will allow for the efficient collection and recovery of the community charge.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, from Government figures, which groups will be worse off under the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  An analysis of households gaining and losing as a result of the introduction of the community charge was contained in Annex J of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government", Cmnd. 9714.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sources of information will be used to establish and maintain the poll tax register.

  Mr. Lang
  Sections 17 and 18 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 sets out the arrangements for the provision of information to community charges registration officers. The main sources of information will be a "responsible person" who will respond to canvass inquiries in respect of each address, and individuals who are required to notify the registration officer when their registration details change. The registration officer will also have access to relevant records held by local authorities. Draft regulations on registration matters were recently issued by the Scottish Office for comment by interested bodies.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect on electoral roll registration of its possible use of a source of information for the poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such estimate. The implementation of the community charge system is a quite separate process from electoral registration and should have no adverse impact on it.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what will happen to a young person, unemployed, and with no material possessions, who does not pay poll tax;

  (2) what action will be taken against those who do not pay poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  The procedures for the recovery of unpaid community charges by the Abolition of Domestic Rates 80
  Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 are similar to those now available for unpaid rates, recently revised by the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. People on the lowest incomes will be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. of their personal community charge liability, and income support levels will be raised to take account of the average minimum contribution.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether those who are disabled will have to pay the poll tax;

  (2) whether the unemployed will have to pay the poll tax;

  (3) how the system will ensure that those on supplementary benefit are not pushed into further hardship;

  (4) whether a person on YTS will have to pay poll tax;

  (5) whether the low paid will have to pay the full amount of poll tax;

  (6) what rebate from poll tax there will be for a part-time shopworker, with no other paid employment;

  (7) whether participants on the community programme will have to pay poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  The community charge will be payable by all those aged 18 and over who have their sole or main residence in each local authority area, apart from those in respect of whom child benefit is payable; the severely mentally handicapped; residents in nursing homes, residential care homes and hostels providing an equivalent level of care; long-term hospital patients; and prisoners. Rebates of up to 80 per cent. will be available to those on low incomes. They will be calculated on a basis which takes account of personal circumstances such as disability. Those receiving income support (which will replace supplementary benefit in April 1988) will receive the maximum rebate and the levels of income support will be raised to take account of the average 20 per cent minimum contribution.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a merchant seaman away from home for months at a time will have to pay the full amount of poll tax.

  Mr. Lang
  It will be for community charge registration officers to determine, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, where a person is solely or mainly resident and hence what is his personal community charge liability. That determination will be subject to appeal to the registration officer in the first instance and from his decision to the sheriff.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the predicted level of the personal community charge in the constituency of Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde in the financial year 1989–90, calculated on the basis of (i) 100 per cent. collection, (ii) 95 per cent. collection, (iii) 90 per cent. collection, (iv) 85 per cent. collection, (v) 80 per cent. collection, (vi) 75 per cent. collection and (vii) 70 per cent. collection.

  Mr. Lang
  No. These are matters for the local authorities concerned.

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the numbers of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of dwellings belonging to the Scottish Special Housing Association in the areas of the district councils concerned at 31 March each year are as follows:

  Kyle and Carrick District Council

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  1979

  1,512

  2,305

  1980

  1,513

  2,323

  1981

  1,473

  2,313

  1982

  1,458

  2,297

  1983

  1,421

  2,284

  1984

  1,375

  2,266

  1985

  1,323

  2,250

  1986

  1,341

  2,214

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Kilmarnock and Loudoun in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of dwellings belonging to the Scottish Special Housing Association in the area of Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council at 31 March each year are as follows:

  Number

  1979

  2,327

  1980

  2,336

  1981

  2,322

  1982

  2,299

  1983

  2,269

  1984

  2,163

  1985

  2,062

  1986

  1,996

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of North Aberdeen for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Falkirk, West in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Glasgow, Maryhill in each year since 1979.
  82
  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Fife, Central each year since 1979.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Edinburgh, Central each year since 1979.

  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Dundee, East constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Dumbarton constituency in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Special Housing Association tenants there are in the Dunfermline, East constituency; and if he will list the numbers in each town of the constituency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area or for areas within local authority districts.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Dundee, West constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Dunfermline, West constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Paisley, South constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Cunninghame, South in each year since 1979.
  83
  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Monklands, East in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of dwellings belonging to the Scottish Special Housing Association in the district council area of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth each year is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  102

  1980

  102

  1981

  99

  1982

  99

  1983

  99

  1984

  96

  1985

  93

  1986

  89

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the average rent levels of Scottish Special Housing Association houses in each year since 1979 in cash terms and in real terms, showing in each case the percentage changes between years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The available information was published in SDD statistical bulletin No. 29 "Public Sector Rents in Scotland 1986–87" which is available in the House Library.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Livingston in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in Greenock and Port Glasgow in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) in the light of the consultation which took place with the Tenants Association over the Scottish Homes Proposals, if he will allow the Scottish Special Housing Association's tenants a ballot to see if they wish to stay Scottish Special Housing Association tenants;

  (2) if he will allow Scottish Special Housing Association's tenants the right to choose who their landlords will be;

  (3) if he will allow the tenants of Scottish Special Housing Association's houses as further consultation after the Government have discussed the findings to allow them to have a say in their future.
  84
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A White Paper setting out the Government's proposals on future housing policy in Scotland will be published in the next few weeks. It will contain our response to the large number of useful comments received in response to the consultation document "Scottish Homes: A New Agency for Housing in Scotland", including explicit proposals concerning the future rights of those who are tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association at present. My right hon. Friend and I will continue to attach particular importance to ensuring that those tenants are properly informed about the Government's proposals and have the opportunity to express their views concerning them. It is regrettable that tenants have been caused unnecessary anxiety over recent months through the activities of those who have sought to misinform them about our proposals.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in Scottish Special Housing Association rented accommodation in the constituency of Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Aberdeen District Council (Capital Allocation and Spending)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what capital allocation was authorised for the City of Aberdeen district council in each of the years since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) in real terms at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  City of Aberdeen district council capital consent allocations

  Year

  Cash terms

  Real terms (at 1986–87 prices)

  £000

  £000

  1978–79

  1,530

  2,977

  1979–80

  1,900

  3,163

  1980–81

  1,600

  2,247

  1981–82

  1,730

  2,212

  1982–83

  2,050

  2,446

  1983–84

  1,560

  1,779

  1984–85

  1,410

  1,540

  1985–86

  1,600

  1,648

  1986–87

  1,700

  1,700

  1987–88

  1,700

  1,627

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what capital spending was authorised for housing purposes to the City of Aberdeen district council in each of the years since 1978 expressed in cash terms and in real terms at 1986–87 prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  85

  Housing capital allocations to city of Aberdeen district council

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1986–87 prices)

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  14·801

  28·798

  1979–80

  15·530

  25·853

  1980–81

  13·939

  19·572

  1981–82

  13·293

  17·000

  1982–83

  10·574

  12·614

  1983–84

  16·179

  18·452

  1984–85

  18·510

  20·221

  1985–86

  14·338

  14·771

  1986–87

  16·765

  16·765

  1987–88

  21·300

  20·383

  Grampian Regional Health Board (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much capital spending was authorised to Grampian regional health board in each of the years since 1978 expressed in cash terms and in real terms in 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures are as follows:

  Gross capital allocation

  £000

  Cash

  At 1986–87 prices

  1979–80

  1,624

  2,702

  1980–81

  2,268

  3,181

  1981–82

  2,736

  3,494

  1982–83

  2,727

  3,247

  1983–841

  3,381

  3,854

  1984–85

  4,832

  5,282

  1985–86

  7,216

  7,433

  1986–87

  6,823

  6,823

  1987–88

  6,371

  6,097

  1.Since 1983–84 special funds have been allocated for repair and maintenance projects.

  2. No separate capital allocation was issued in 1978–79.

  3. These figures do not include projects in Grampian which form part of the national major building programme.

  Grampian Regional Health Board (Capital Spending and Revenue Budget)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the revenue budget of Grampian regional health board for each of the years since 1978, expressed in cash terms and real terms at 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grampian health board's revenue expenditure allocation in each of these years for hospital and community health services was as follows:

  £'000

  Cash

  At 1986–87 prices

  1978–79

  51,646

  100,414

  1979–80

  62,738

  104,379

  1980–81

  82,953

  116,349

  1981–82

  92,119

  117,655

  1982–83

  101,011

  120,288

  1983–84

  105,390

  120,146

  1984–85

  116,859

  127,742

  1985–86

  120,189

  123,804

  1986–87

  130,366

  130,366

  1987–88

  1143,128

  136,965

  1 Provisional.

  Housing Association Accommodation
  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in public sector housing association rented accommodation in the Midlothian constituency in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in public sector housing association rented accommodation in the Hamilton constituency for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Housing Allocations
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the total issued capital allocations for Scottish housing in 1987–88 has come from estimated sales receipts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  £212 million of the total issued capital allocations for local authorities, SSH A and new towns is from estimated sales receipts.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the £8·3 million additional capital allocation for Scottish housing announced on 2 October comes front estimated sales receipts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the net capital allocation (non-housing revenue account) figure, repriced for inflation, for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (2) if he will give the percentage increase or decrease in capital allocation (non-housing revenue account) over the previous year for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (3) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency, repriced for inflation, for each year since 1978;

  (4) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation housing revenue account over the previous year for district councils within the Dunfermline. East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (5) if he will give the net capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure for district councils within the constituency for each year since 1978;

  (6) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation non-housing revenue account over the previous year for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency;

  (7) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (8) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation (housing revenue account) over the previous year for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;
  87
  (9) if he will give the gross capital allocation (non-housing revenue account) figure for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (10)if he will give the gross capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure, repriced for inflation, for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1978;

  (11) if he will give the gross capital allocation—housing revenue account—figure for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency for each year since 1977;

  (12) if he will give the gross capital allocation—housing revenue account—figure for district councils within the Dunfermline, East constituency, repriced for inflation, for each year since 1977.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The answers to these questions are contained in the following tables:

  Dunfermline District Council

  HRA capital allocations

  Year

  Gross £ million

  Net £ million

  Gross percentage change

  Gross £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  Net £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  1978–79

  4·280

  See note 2

  —

  8·702

  —

  1979–80

  4·530

  See note 2

  +5·8

  7·881

  —

  1980–81

  3·807

  See note 2

  -16·0

  5·586

  —

  1981–82

  4·750

  See note 2

  + 24·8

  6·348

  —

  1982–83

  6·248

  2·218

  +31·5

  7·789

  2·765

  1983–84

  9·357

  0·830

  +49·8

  11·152

  0·989

  1984–85

  6·979

  1·756

  -25·4

  7·967

  2·005

  1985–86

  8·304

  4·127

  +19·0

  8·940

  4·443

  1986–87

  9·039

  4·877

  +8·9

  9·446

  5·096

  1987–88

  11·000

  6·545

  +21·7

  11·000

  6·545

  Note 1: The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79

  Note 2: The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  Dunfermline District Council Non-HRA capital allocations

  Year

  Gross

  Net

  Gross percentage change

  Gross (£ million) 1987–88 constant prices

  Net (£ million) 1987–88 constant prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  0·265

  See note 2

  —

  0·539

  —

  1979–80

  0·430

  See note 2

  +62·3

  0·748

  —

  1980–81

  0·515

  See note 2

  +19·8

  0·756

  —

  1981–82

  0·987

  See note 2

  -91·7

  1·319

  —

  1982–83

  1·543

  1·475

  +56·3

  1·934

  1·839

  1983–84

  1·476

  1·191

  -4·3

  1·759

  1·419

  1984–85

  0·905

  0·330

  -38·7

  1·033

  0·377

  1985–86

  0·703

  0·651

  -22·3

  0·757

  0·701

  1986–87

  0·998

  0·982

  +42·0

  1·043

  1·026

  1987–88

  1·125

  0·975

  +12·7

  1·125

  0·975

  Note 1: The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79

  Note 2: The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  Note 3: Special arrangements applied to 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent, subject to certain conditions.
  88

  Kirkcaldy District Council HRA Capital Allocations

  Year

  Gross £ million

  Net £ million

  Gross percentage Change

  Gross £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  Net £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  1978–79

  3·852

  See Note 2

  —

  7·832

  —

  1979–80

  4·700

  See Note 2

  +22·0

  8·176

  —

  1980–81

  5·156

  See Note 2

  +9·7

  7·566

  —

  1981–82

  7·119

  See Note 2

  +38·1

  9·514

  —

  1982–83

  9·046

  5·335

  +27·1

  11·277

  6·651

  1983–84

  7·207

  2·342

  -20·3

  8·589

  2·791

  1984–85

  6·955

  0·300

  -3·5

  7·940

  0·342

  1985–86

  7·396

  1·244

  +6·3

  7·962

  1·339

  1986–87

  8·285

  4·037

  +12·0

  8·658

  4·219

  1987–88

  11·000

  6·449

  +32·8

  11·000

  6·449

  Notes:

  1. The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79.

  2. The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  Kirkcaldy District Council non-HRA capital allocations

  Year

  Gross £ million

  Net £ million

  Gross percentage change

  Gross £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  Net £ million 1987–88 constant prices

  1978–79

  0·572

  See Note 2

  —

  1·163

  —

  1979–80

  0·990

  Ditto

  +73·1

  1·722

  —

  1980–81

  1·176

  Ditto

  +18·8

  1·726

  —

  1981–82

  1·597

  Ditto

  +35·8

  2·134

  —

  1982–83

  2·958

  3·100

  +85·2

  3·688

  3·865

  1983–84

  3·179

  3·227

  +7·5

  3·789

  3·846

  1984–85

  1·492

  1·250

  -53·1

  1·703

  1·427

  1985–86

  1·282

  1·149

  -14·1

  1·380

  1·237

  1986–87

  1·341

  1·147

  +4·6

  1·401

  1·199

  1987–88

  1·300

  1·100

  -3·1

  1·300

  1·100

  Notes:

  1. The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79.

  2. The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  3. Special arrangements applied to 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent, subject to certain conditions.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the net capital allocation (non-HRA) figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give Edinburgh district council's housing revenue account capital allocation for each year from 1978 to 1987 as a proportion of the total net capital allocation housing revenue account for Scotland in each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (3) if he will give Edinburgh district council's non-housing revenue account capital allocation for each year from 1978 to 1987 as a proportion of the total net capital allocation for Scotland;

  (4) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation non-housing revenue account over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (5) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation non-housing revenue account over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (6) if he will give net capital allocation—non housing revenue account—figure repriced for inflation, for Edinburgh district council each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (7) if he will give Edinburgh district council's non-HRA capital allocation for each year from 1978 to 1987 as a proportion of the total gross capital allocation non-HRA for Scotland in that year;
  89
  (8) if he will give the percentage increase or decrease in capital allocation non-HRA over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (9)if he will give the gross capital allocation non-HRA figure, repriced for inflation, for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (10) if he will give the gross capital allocation non-HRA figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (11) if he will give Edinburgh district council's HRA capital allocation for each year from 1978 to 1987 as a proportion of the total gross capital allocation HRA for Scotland in that year;

  (12) if he will give the percentage increase or decrease in capital allocation—housing revenue account—over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (13) if he will give the gross capital allocation—housing revenue account—figure for Edinburgh district council, repriced for inflation, for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (14) if he will give the gross capital allocation—housing revenue account—figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The answers to these questions are contained in the following tables:

  Edinburgh District Council HRA Gross Capital Allocations

  Year

  Allocation £ million

  Percentage change

  Percentage of total HRA resources

  Allocation (£ million) 1987–88 constant prices

  1978–79

  8·025

  —

  4·2

  16·317

  1979–80

  8·000

  -0·3

  3·5

  13·917

  1980–81

  8·635

  + 7·9

  3·7

  12·670

  1981–82

  12·215

  +41·5

  4·9

  16·324

  1982–83

  14·956

  +22·4

  5·3

  18·645

  1983–84

  16·583

  +10·9

  5·3

  19·764

  1984–85

  11·278

  -32·0

  4·6

  12·875

  1985–86

  19·966

  +77·0

  6·9

  21·494

  1986–87

  21·918

  +9·8

  6·4

  22·904

  1987–88

  29·250

  +33·5

  7·0

  29–250

  Note 1: The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79.

  Edinburgh District Council

  Non-HRA gross capital allocations

  Year

  Allocation

  Percentage change

  Percentage of total non-HRA resources

  Allocation 1987–88 constant prices

  £ million

  per cent.

  per cent.

  £ million

  1978–79

  6·134

  —

  14·7

  12·472

  1979–80

  7·560

  + 23·2

  15·6

  13·152

  1980–81

  10·800

  +42·9

  18·2

  15·847

  1981–82

  14·146

  + 31·0

  17·9

  18·904

  1982–83

  18·833

  +33·1

  17·7

  23·478

  1983–84

  14·000

  -25·7

  14·3

  16·686

  1984–85

  17·795

  +27·1

  10·3

  20·314

  1985–86

  21·264

  + 19·5

  17·0

  22·892

  1986–87

  17·634

  -17·1

  15·1

  18·427

  1987–88

  34·520

  +95–8

  22·8

  34·520

  Notes:

  1. The block allocation system was introduced in 1978–79.

  2. Special arrangements applied to 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent, subject to certain conditions.
  90

  Edinburgh District Council HRA net capital allocations

  Year

  Allocation (£ million)

  Percentage of total HRA resources

  Allocation (£ million) 1987–88 constant prices

  1982–83

  11·752

  6·5

  14·650

  1983–84

  6·500

  3·7

  7·747

  1984–85

  1·889

  1·7

  2·156

  1985–86

  0·814

  0·5

  0·876

  1986–87

  12·374

  6·0

  12·931

  1987–88

  19·261

  7·4

  19·261

  Note 1: The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  Edinburgh District Council non-HRA net capital allocations

  Year

  Allocation (£ million)

  Percentage of total non-HRA resources

  Allocation (£ million) 1987–88 constant prices

  1982–83

  11·550

  13·4

  14·399

  1983–84

  10·048

  13·1

  11·975

  1984–85

  12·900

  8·7

  14·726

  1985–86

  10·184

  10·2

  10·964

  1986–87

  18·370

  16·5

  19·197

  1987–88

  33·770

  23·6

  33·770

  Note 1: The net allocation system was introduced in 1982–83.

  Note 2: Special arrangements applied to 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent, subject to certain conditions

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the net capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the net capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (3) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation housing revenue account over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (4) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (5) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (6) if he will give the percentage increase or decrease in capital allocation housing revenue account over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (7) if he will give the gross capital allocation non-HRA figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (8) if he will give the gross capital allocation non-HRA figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (9) if he will give the percentage increase or decrease in capital allocation non-HRA over the previous year for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (10) if he will give the gross capital allocation HRA, figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (11) if he will give the gross capital allocation HRA figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987;
  91
  (12) if he will give a breakdown of his Department's target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent, for Edinburgh for each year from 1982 to 1987;

  (13) if he will give a breakdown of his Department's target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent, for Scotland for each year from 1982 to 1987;

  (14) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for Edinburgh district council, repriced for inflation, for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (15) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (16) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation housing revenue account over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give Edinburgh district council's non-housing revenue account capital allocation for each year since 1978 as a proportion of the total net capital allocation (non-housing revenue account) for Scotland in that year;

  (2) if he will give Edinburgh district council's housing revenue account capital allocation for each year since 1978 as a proportion of the total net capital allocation housing revenue account for Scotland in that year;

  (3) if he will give Edinburgh district council's non-housing revenue account capital allocation for each year since 1978 as a proportion of the total gross capital allocation non-housing revenue account for Scotland in that year;

  (4) if he will give the net capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure for district councils within the constituency for each year since 1978;

  (5) if he will give Edinburgh district council's (housing revenue account) capital allocation for each year since 1978 as a proportion of the total gross capital allocation housing revenue account for Scotland in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation—non-housing revenue account—over the previous year for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (2) if he will give the net capital allocation—non-housing revenue account—figure for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (3) if he will give the net capital allocation—non-housing revenue account—figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (4) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation housing revenue account over the previous year for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (5) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (6) if he will give the net capital allocation housing revenue account figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year since 1978;
  92
  (7) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation non-housing revenue account over the previous year for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (8) if he will give the gross capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (9) if he will give the gross capital allocation non-housing revenue account figure, repriced for inflation, for Scotland for each year since 1978;

  (10) if he will give the percentage change in capital allocation—housing revenue account—over the previous year for Scotland for each year since 1978.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The answers to these questions are contained in the following tables:

  Scotland HRA Capital Allocations

  Year

  Gross

  Net

  Gross per cent. change

  Gross 1987–88 constant prices

  Net 1987–88 constant prices

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  191·051

  2

  —

  388·449

  2

  1979–80

  230·700

  2

  +20·8

  401·336

  2

  1980–81

  231·788

  2

  +0·5

  340·109

  2

  1981–82

  247·752

  2

  +6·9

  331·091

  2

  1982–83

  279·637

  180·266

  +12·9

  348·605

  224·726

  1983–84

  310·564

  177·625

  +11·1

  370·138

  211·700

  1984–85

  245·830

  112·482

  -20·8

  280·634

  128·407

  1985–86

  290·289

  160·227

  +18·1

  312·512

  172·493

  1986–87

  340·958

  204·942

  +17·5

  356·300

  214·164

  1987–88

  414·984

  261·299

  +21·7

  414·984

  261·299

  Note1Block allocation system introduced in 1978–79.

  Note 2Net allocation system introduced in 1982–83.

  Scotland

  Non-HRA capital allocations

  Year

  Gross

  Net

  Gross percentage change

  Gross 1987–88 constant prices

  Net 1987–88 constant prices

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  £ million

  £ million

  1978–79

  41·728

  2

  —

  84·842

  2

  1979–80

  48·600

  2

  +16·5

  84·547

  2

  1980–81

  59·432

  2

  +22·3

  87·206

  2

  1981–82

  79·126

  2

  +33·1

  105·742

  2

  1982–83

  106·590

  86·133

  +34·7

  132·879

  107·376

  1983–84

  98·061

  76·432

  -8·0

  116·871

  91·093

  1984–85

  172·052

  148·699

  +75·5

  196·411

  169·752

  1985–86

  125·055

  99·321

  -27·3

  134·628

  106·924

  1986–87

  116·599

  111·508

  -6·8

  121·846

  116·526

  1987–88

  151·700

  143·144

  +30·1

  151·700

  143·144

  Notes:

  1 Block allocation system introduced in 1978–79.

  2 Net allocation system introduced in 1982–83.

  3 Special arrangements applied to 1983–84 when authorities were allowed to exceed consent subject to certain conditions.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give a breakdown of his Department's target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent, for Edinburgh for each year from 1982 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown of his Department's target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent, for Scotland for each year from 1982 to 1987.
  93
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the following table:

  Scottish Development Department HRA capital receipts estimate as percentage of gross capital allocation for Scotland and Edinburgh

  Scotland

  Edinburgh

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1982–83

  31

  24

  1983–84

  35

  54

  1984–85

  53

  84

  1985–86

  45

  90

  1986–87

  36

  39

  1987–88

  37

  36

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of his Department's target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent, for Edinburgh for 1982.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of his Department's

  Greenock and Port Glasgow constituency

  July 1985

  July 1986

  July 1987

  Age Group

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Under 25

  1,919

  1,051

  2,970

  1,898

  1,000

  2,898

  1,780

  823

  2,603

  25–34

  1,410

  496

  1,906

  1,477

  489

  1,966

  1,617

  413

  2,030

  35–49

  1,633

  407

  2,040

  1,629

  489

  2,118

  1,691

  431

  2,122

  50 and over

  1,024

  276

  1,300

  1,036

  304

  1,340

  1,029

  282

  1,311

  All ages

  5,986

  2,230

  8,216

  6,040

  2,282

  8,322

  6,117

  1,949

  8,066

  Note:

  The 1985, 1986 and 1987 figures are not comparable due to changes in the method of the count.

  This information is available in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing unemployment by age group in Greenock and Port Glasgow for the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  On 9 July 1987 the number of unemployed claimants by age group in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency was as shown in the following table:

  Age group

  Unemployed claimants

  Under 17

  107

  Aged 17

  239

  Aged 18

  359

  Aged 19

  327

  Aged 20 to 24

  1,571

  Aged 25 to 29

  1,173

  Aged 30 to 34

  857

  Aged 35 to 39

  773

  Aged 40 to 44

  671

  Aged 45 to 49

  678

  Aged 50 to 54

  592

  Aged 55 to 59

  625

  Aged 60 and over

  94

  TOTAL

  8,066

  This information is available in the Library.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of people registered as unemployed in numbers and in percentage terms in
  94
  target for capital receipts on the housing revenue account, capital, as a proportion of borrowing consent. for Scotland for 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department's housing revenue account—HRA—capital receipts estimates for 1982–83 comprised 31 per cent. of the HRA gross capital allocation for Scotland and 24 per cent. of the allocation for Edinburgh.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people unemployed in the Greenock and Port Glasgow constituency, by sex, who are (a) under 25 years of age, (b) 25 to 35 years, (c) 35 to 50 years and (d) over 50 years; and what were the numbers in 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Scotland, (b) Ayrshire and (c) Kilmarnock and Loudoun and compare this with (i) the 1979 figures and percentage and (ii) the 1983 figures and percentage.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, unemployment figures and rates for the Kilmarnock travel-to-work area—which since 1983 are the same as for the parliamentary constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun—together with the comparable figures for Scotland are shown in the table.

  Year (September)

  Kilmarnock travel-to-work area

  Scotland

  Number

  per cent.

  Number

  per cent.

  1979

  3,277

  9·5

  163,585

  7·2

  1983

  5,465

  17·6

  339,992

  15·3

  1987

  5,374

  17·1

  332,684

  14·8

  The figures for the different years are not comparable due to changes in the method of the count.

  This information is available in the Library.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all industrial and commercial redundancies which amount to 25 or more in (a) the constituency of North Aberdeen and (b) Aberdeen for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested cannot be provided since details of closures and redundancies confirmed by individual companies are provided to the Manpower Services Commission in confidence.
  95
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested cannot be provided since details of closures and redundancies confirmed by individual companies are provided to the Manpower Services Commission in confidence.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each employment office and ward district the numbers unemployed in the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of unemployed claimants for each Jobcentre and in each local authority district ward in Scotland cannot be provided except at a disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many young people under 25 years of age were unemployed in the Greenock travel-to-work area and Strathclyde region; and of these how many have been unemployed for more than one year, two years, three years and four years.

  Mr. Lang
  On 9 July 1987, the latest date for which information is available, the numbers of unemployed claimants under 25 years of age in the Greenock travel-to-work area and Strathclyde regional authority by duration were as shown in the table.

  Duration unemployed

  Greenock travel-to-work area Number of unemployed claimants

  Strathclyde regional authority Number of unemployed claimants

  Up to 1 year

  2,014

  47,564

  1 to 2 years

  552

  11,240

  2 to 3 years

  237

  4,370

  3 to 4 years

  108

  2,249

  over 4 years

  150

  3,218

  Total

  3,061

  68,641

  This information is available in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were placed in employment by the job centres in Greenock and Port Glasgow in the years 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Lang
  Figures for Greenock and Port Glasgow jobcentre areas separately are not available for the whole period. The April-September 1985 figure is compiled on a different basis and is not directly comparable.

  Number of placings

  Of which community programme

  April 1985 to September 1985

  2,187

  n/a

  October 1985 to March 1986

  Greenock

  1,897

  346

  Port Glasgow

  314

  122

  April 1986 to March 1987

  Greenock

  4,148

  762

  Port Glasgow

  703

  164

  Closures
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures reported to his Department that have resulted in 20 or more redundancies in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the constituency of Falkirk, West in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Glasgow, Pollock constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Midlothian constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Hamilton constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Glasgow, Maryhill in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the constituency of Fife, Central in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Edinburgh, Central in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the East Kilbride constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Dundee, East constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Dumbarton constituency in each year since 1979.
  97
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Dundee, West constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Dunfermline, West constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Paisley, South constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Livingston in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Milian
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the closures or redundancies in Glasgow involving in each case more than 50 employees for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the constituency of Cunninghame, South in each year since 1979.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Monklands, East in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all employment closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde Region and (e) Scotland as a whole in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in more than 25 redundancies in the Paisley, North constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all closures that have resulted in 25 or more redundancies in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested cannot be provided since details of closures and redundancies confirmed by individual companies are provided to the Manpower Services Commission in confidence.

  Prison Violence
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether Special Air Service personnel were used to quell recent riots in Scottish prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It would be inappropriate, for security and operational reasons, to comment on the way in which the recent incidents were resolved or on the contingency plans for dealing with such incidents.
  98
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he proposes to investigate the recent outbreaks of violence at Shotts prison, Motherwell, North constituency;

  (2) if there is to be a Government inquiry into the causes of recent outbreaks of violence in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The incident at Shotts prison, from 26 September to 27 September, is the subject of investigation by the police and procurator fiscal and may be the subject of criminal proceedings. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the nature or possible outcome of these investigations, or any criminal proceedings which might result. The implications of the recent incidents in Scottish prisons are at present being assessed by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is to be a Government inquiry into the causes of recent outbreaks of violence in Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The implications of the recent incidents in Scottish prisons are at present being assessed by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the levels of overcrowding in Perth, Inverness and Barlinnie prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at lock-up on Tuesday 20 October 1987, the position was as follows:

  Number of inmates

  Design capacity

  Percentage overcrowding or places vacant Per cent.

  Perth1

  422

  1519

  218

  Inverness

  101

  87

  316

  Barlinnie

  1,069

  983

  39

  All penal establishments in Scotland

  5,409

  15,598

  23

  1 Some places at Perth prison, and other prisons, are temporarily out of use because of damage by inmates in recent incidents.

  2 Places vacant.

  3 Overcrowded.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the levels of overcrowding in Perth, Inverness, and Barlinnie prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at lock-up on Tuesday 20 October 1987, the position was as follows:

  Number of inmates

  Design capacity

  Percentage overcrowding or places vacant Per cent.

  Perth1

  422

  1519

  218

  Inverness

  101

  87

  316

  Barlinnie

  1,069

  983

  39

  All penal establishments in Scotland

  5,409

  15,598

  23

  99
  1 Some places at Perth prison, and other prisons, are temporarily out of use because of damage by inmates in recent incidents.

  2 Places vacant.

  3 Overcrowded.

  NHS (Statistics)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Ayrshire and Arran, and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in full-time equivalent.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information for Ayrshire and Arran Health Board is shown in the following table:

  Year Figures as at 30 September

  Average available staffed beds

  Staff3 (whole time equivalent)

  1979

  2,837

  5,113·0

  1980

  2,822

  5,237·8

  1981

  2,827

  5,419·8

  1982

  2,794

  5,842·9

  1983

  2,918

  6,208·5

  1984

  3,059

  6,050·9

  1985

  3,001

  6,190·3

  1986

  2,974

  6,241·9

  11987

  22,951

  6,244·7

  1 Figures at 31 March, except the medical and dental component of the staff total which is at 30 September 1986.

  2 Provisional figure.

  3 Excludes General Practitioners.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patients beds in Livingston and (b) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the constituency of Falkirk, West and (b) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Glasgow, Maryhill and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Renfrewshire West and Inverclyde constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  (iv) Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Dumbarton constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.
  100
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Glasgow, Pollock constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Services in-patient beds in the East Kilbride constituency and (b) the number of National Health Services staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list showing, for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Dundee, West constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Monklands, East and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Paisley, South constituency and (b) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the constituency of Cunninghame, South and (b) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Hospital Beds
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds were available for geriatric care in National Health Service hospitals in each of the years 1980 to 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average number of staffed beds available in geriatric specialties in National Health Service hospitals is given below:

  Year1

  Beds

  1980

  9,617

  1981

  9,906

  1982

  10,080

  1983

  10,401

  1984

  10,700

  1985

  10,690

  1986

  10,812

  1987

  10,961

  101
  1 All figures are as at 30 September except for 1987 which is 31 March.

  Nurses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage nurses to remain in the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) today.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what policies are being proposed or carried out in order to (a) attract more nurses into the National Health Service in Scotland and (b) to give them incentives to stay and constantly improve their standards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Discussions are taking place at national and local level on how best to attract more recruits into nursing. In Scotland. recruitment initiatives undertaken by individual health hoards on a local basis include "back to nursing" campaigns, advertising of part-time opportunities, co-operation with head teachers and career advisers on recruitment from schools and co-operation with job and skill centres on recruitment of mature entrants. We have reversed the decline which took place between 1974 and 1979, when the pay of nurses fell by 21 per cent. in real terms, and implemented increases in nurses' pay giving a rise of 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In addition the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council is reviewing grading structures in order to ensure that those working in clinical areas are appropriately rewarded.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish (a) the number of nurses in post in Edinburgh Royal infirmary as at 1 April and (b) the Lothian health board established figure for nurses on 1 April.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information as at 15 April 1987 is:

  Nurses (whole-time equivalent)

  In-post

  Funded establishment

  Trained

  737·75

  733·6

  Untrained

  219·34

  230·0

  In addition there are on average 295 learner nurses and 15 post basic learner nurses at the hospital.

  Health Problems (Ministerial Advice)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary for State of Scotland what advice he has received on the health problems brought about by homelessness or poor housing conditions, unemployment and deprivation in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the Eighties"—the SHAPE report—submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor in 1980, recommended that health hoards should include in their top priorities services for the multiple deprived.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the new full-time, medical staff employed by
  102
  the National Health Service in Scotland since 1979 are filling vacancies left by retirement or other similar causes; and how many correspond to the expansion or improvement of medical service in the Scottish National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available. However, since 1979 the number of full-time hospital and community medical staff has increased from 4,699 to 5,021, an increase of 7 per cent. This reflects the Government's continued commitment to the NHS by expanding and improving medical services.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979, (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency and (b) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the number of National Health Service in-atient beds in Aberdeen and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the constituency of Central Fife and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing, for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency and (b) the numberof National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1979 (i) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Greenock and Port Glasgow and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, by occupational designation and in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the overall increase in spending required by the National Health Service in Scotland due to increasing demands of the population on the service in 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimates of demand on the National Health Service in Scotland, including both hospital and primary care services, are being considered as part of the current review of public expenditure plans.

  NHS
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on increasing the level of contracting out of National Health Service services to private concerns in Scotland.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on increasing the level of contracting out of National Health Service services to private concerns in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's policy is that, in order to provide the best care for patients, all services in the NHS should be provided in as cost-effective a way as possible; and that competitive tendering involving the private sector has a significant role to play in achieving that. I am discussing with health boards the steps that need to be taken to make better progress.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the overall increase in spending required by the National Health Service in Scotland due to the increasing demands of the population on the service in 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave today to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the revenue expenditure allocated to Lothian health board in 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I expect to announce the revenue expenditure allocations to Scottish health boards for 1988–89 in February.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making available additional capital funds to Lothian health board to enable identified remedial and improvement work to be carried out to Edinburgh royal infirmary in 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board has been allocated £18,529,000 for capital expenditure in 1987–88—including £9,821,000 earmarked for projects at the Western general hospital, Edinburgh, the West Lothian district general hospital, Livingston and the Edinburgh dental hospital. Apart from these earmarked funds, it is for the board to determine its spending priorities within its allocation. The board is due to submit a revised capital plan shortly and its capital allocation for 1988–89 will be announced early next year.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive Lothian health board's option appraisal on the future of the Edinburgh royal infirmary.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board is currently reviewing its acute service needs, and I expect to receive its proposals when it has completed this work.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Lothian health board with regard to its revenue and capital expenditure in (a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian is among the best funded health authorities in Great Britain. Since the 1987–88 104
  capital and revenue allocations were issued, my Department has received two letters from Lothian health board about capital allocations. In addition officials maintain regular contact about many aspects of the board's financial affairs.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to give a figure for the reasonable additional costs incurred by the National Health Service for training nurses employed by Health Care International.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The detailed arrangements for nurse training are the subject of continuing discussion between HCI, Greater Glasgow health board and the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sanctions are available to him in the event of Health Care International failing to fulfil the undertakings given to him to apply National Health Service conditions of service to their staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no reason why Health Care International should not abide by the undertakings, which it volunteered, to apply NHS remuneration and conditions of service to medical, nursing, other professional and technical staff. There are sanctions, in terms of inability to register with Greater Glasgow health board in accordance with the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 if the terms of the authorisation have not been met.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the undertakings given to him by Health Care International that it will not compete with the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. A copy of the Health Care International application and the terms of the Secretary of State's authorisation will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he received concerning the Health Care International proposal for a private hospital in Clydebank; how many of these favoured the proposal; how many opposed; how many sought safeguards for existing medical provision in west central Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Forty persons or bodies sent observations to the Secretary of State about the application. Many of those consulted saw both benefits and drawbacks and the views varied as to the impact which the development might have on the National Health Service; the concerns most commonly addressed were those of the supply of qualified nurses and of blood and blood products. I believe that these concerns have been fully addressed by the conditions which have been attached to the authorisation.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for an ambulance responding to an emergency call in (a) rural

  105
  areas and (b) urban areas; what arrangements exist for monitoring response times; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish ambulance service carries out detailed monitoring of response times and submits quarterly returns to my Department. Ambulance areas are classified as either metropolitan or rural and in Scotland only the Glasgow area falls into the metropolitan category. The figures available show the percentage of emergency calls answered within specified time limits. In 1986–87, the response times were as follows:

  Area

  8 minutes

  14 minutes

  20 minutes

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Highland and Western Isles

  59·4

  77·5

  88·2

  Grampian, Orkney and Shetland

  69·0

  87·8

  94·5

  Tayside

  71·1

  92·8

  97·8

  Fife, Lothian and Borders

  57·8

  87·5

  96·5

  Glasgow

  44·5

  81·3

  93·6

  Forth Valley and Lanarkshire

  63·9

  90·5

  97·8

  Argyll and Clyde

  65·4

  89·1

  96·8

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  70·4

  90·2

  97·3

  Scotland

  58·8

  86·9

  95·8

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in achieving the double manning of ambulances throughout the Scottish ambulance service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government give high priority to reducing the number of emergency calls which are answered by single-manned ambulances. Extra money has been allocated to allow more rapid progress to be made to that end. As a result the Scottish ambulance service will spend about £250,000 in 1987–88 on reducing single manning of accident and emergency ambulances.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on hospital waiting lists in Fife.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information centrally available, which relates to 31 March 1987 and is provisional, shows 5,198 people on waiting lists for hospital in-patient treatment in the Fife health board area.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of National Health Service beds in Renfrew district and compare in that table the current figure with 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a district basis.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the care of elderly hospital patients in the east end of Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of geriatric services in east Glasgow is primarily a matter for the Greater Glasgow health board. The board is, however, conducting a strategic review of services for the elderly in the greater 106
  Glasgow area as a whole and any decisions on services for elderly patients in the east end of the city will be dependent on the outcome of that review.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (a) private and (b) National Health Service hospitals have been built in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Forsyth
  (a) Two private hospital developments have been notified to the Secretary of State since 1979. one in 1981 and one in 1982. (b) Details of all hospital developments are not held centrally. The information for major capital projects is as follows:

  Year

  Number of hospitals

  1979

  2

  1980

  10

  1981

  6

  1982

  5

  1983

  10

  1984

  6

  1985

  4

  1986

  4

  11987

  4

  Total

  51

  1 To date.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, for each hospital which performed abortions in each health board area, in the latest year for which statistics are available, the ages of the women having the abortions, the numbers of those women resident in that health board area and the numbers who travelled from other parts of Scotland, other parts of the United Kingdom, other European Economic Community countries and other countries;

  (2) if he will list for each hospital which performed abortions in each health board area, in the latest year for which statistics are available, the gestational ages of the foetuses;

  (3) which hospitals within each health board area perform abortions; and how many abortions were performed in each hospital in the latest year for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Forsyth
  Information about the abortions performed in each health board area is published in "Scottish Health Statistics". It is not our practice to publish a breakdown of these figures by individual hospital.

  Abortions
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by each district health authority area the number of abortions undertaken in each year since 1967.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the number of abortions by Health Board of treatment are given in "Scottish Health Statistics 1985"—page 58. The statistics are published annually.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give by Government Department the number of registered disabled persons employed as a percentage of the total work force for each year since 1979.

  Disabled Staff as a percentage of total Staff

  Department

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Scottish Office (excluding Scottish Prison Service)

  1·72

  1·84

  1·66

  1·65

  1·32

  1·53

  1·46

  1·66

  1·69

  Scottish Prison Service

  0·27

  0·41

  0·40

  0·38

  0·33

  0·29

  0·28

  0·23

  0·19

  General Register Office (Scotland)

  3·44

  3·76

  3·37

  2·92

  2·80

  2·77

  2·69

  2·30

  1·96

  Scottish Record Office

  1·46

  1·46

  1·46

  0·84

  0·78

  1·61

  1·59

  1·68

  1·65

  Scottish Courts Administration

  1·76

  1·28

  1·13

  1·07

  0·91

  0·57

  0·46

  0·46

  0·35

  I will write to the hon. Member with the relevant information for the Department of the Registers of Scotland.

  Open-heart Surgery
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his review of open-heart surgery facilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the expansion of such facilities in the area of Grampian health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The review has not yet been completed.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce a comprehensive scheme of screening for breast cancer among women aged below 50 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. We announced earlier this year that we accepted the recommendations of the Forrest report on breast cancer screening that there should be a comprehensive three-yearly screening programme for all women between the ages of 50 and 64. I recently announced that the first four breast cancer screening centres will be established in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee during 1988.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of breast cancer screening machines in each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cervical Cancer Tests
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many clinics and laboratories are carrying out cervical cancer tests in Scotland; and where are they operating.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Many clinics and GPs take cervical cancer smears which must then be forwarded to laboratories for testing for cervical cancer. The 19 laboratories examining cervical cancer smears in Scotland are as follows:
  108
  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested for the departments for which I am responsible is as follows:

  Health Board

  Laboratory

  Argyll and Clyde

  Inverclyde royal infirmary

  Royal Alexandra hospital

  Vale of Leven hospital

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayrshire central hospital

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary

  Forth Valley

  Stirling royal infirmary

  Grampian

  Foresterhill hospital

  Greater Glasgow

  Royal maternity hospital

  Glasgow royal infirmary

  Southern general hospital

  Stobhill hospital

  Victoria infirmary

  Western infirmary

  Highland

  Raigmore hospital

  Dunbar hospital

  Lanarkshire

  Monklands district general hospital

  Lothian

  Edinburgh royal infirmary

  Tayside

  Dundee royal infirmary

  Perth royal infirmary

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given health boards on cervical cancer screening; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have received and am presently considering the report of a Scottish Health Service Planning Council working group which reviewed the cervical cytology service in Scotland. Guidance to health boards will be issued in due course.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to curb drug abuse in Glasgow, Springburn.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's strategy and the measures being taken to tackle the problem of drug misuse throughout the United Kingdom are described in "Tackling Drug Misuse—A Summary of the Government's Strategy", copies of which are in the Library.
  109
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds have been spent in Glasgow, Springburn to rehabilitate drug addicts for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to seek to prevent abuse by drug addicts of pain killing drugs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's strategy and the measures being taken to tackle the problem of drug misuse are described in "Tackling Drug Misuse—A Summary of the Government's Strategy", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new facilities the Scottish National Health Service has been given, since 1979, for the diagnosis and treatment of drug abusers, including their accommodation.

  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new facilities have been made available to the National Health Service in Scotland for the treatment of heroin and related drug abuse since 1983.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what new facilities have been made available to the National Health Service in Scotland for the treatment of heroin and related drug abuse since 1983.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  NHS services for drug misusers are generally provided as part of the usual range of community and hospital-based services. The Government have made substantial increases in resources available to health boards since 1979 and it is for individual health boards to determine the level of expenditure on particular services from within their overall financial allocations.

  In 1984 and 1985 in addition the Government provided funds to establish a range of local drug projects run by health boards, local authorities and voluntary bodies in

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  21986

  Family Planning (Clinic) Services

  People attending

  137,245

  3138,377

  135,672

  135,309

  132,587

  Contraceptive method chosen

  —Oral contraceptive

  78,162

  83,026

  78,649

  76,163

  73,488

  —IUD

  21,981

  22,158

  21,574

  20,676

  19,086

  —Cap/Diaphragm

  7,991

  8,255

  9,129

  9,794

  9,837

  —Condom

  12,046

  12,018

  12,582

  13,300

  13,503

  —Other/not known

  5,735

  4,192

  8,270

  9,090

  10,607

  —None

  11,330

  8,738

  5,468

  6,286

  6,066

  Family Planning (Domiciliary) Services

  Women seen

  3,422

  3,179

  3,018

  2,787

  2,735

  General Practitioner Contraceptive Services (as at 31 December)

  Women registered with a GP for ordinary contraceptive services or IUD fitting1

  233,276

  248,303

  254,277

  260,425

  270,797

  1 Excludes temporary residents.

  2 Provisional: 1985 data are used for Family Planning (Clinic) Services data in Greater Glasgow, whose 1986 data are not available.

  3 In 1983 10 people appear twice in the breakdown by contraceptive method because they used two methods during the year.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and which health boards provide designated young people's birth control services in Scotland.
  110
  places where drug misuse was prevalent. The support of these projects was the responsibililty of the Scottish Office until April this year when this responsibility was devolved to the relevant health boards. The total cost of these projects which are listed below is about £0·75 million per year.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Possil Drugs Project

  The Place, Possilpark

  Voluntary community groups, Possil and Springburn

  Drug stopping programme, Southern General Hospital

  Counselling and support service, Castlemilk

  Community support project, Easterhouse

  Detached worker, Duke Street Hospital

  Lothian Health Board

  Church of Scotland, Spectrum House, Tynepark

  Church of Scotland, Simpson House

  Social work support for drug misusers, Pilton/Muirhouse

  SHADA

  WEST

  Leith Group

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Social work support for drug misusers, Ianarkshire

  Tayside Health Board

  Wishart Drug Problems Centre

  Health adviser, GUM Clinic, Dundee

  Social work support for drug misusers, Tayside

  Perth Family Support Group

  Dundee Family Support Group

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Social work support for drug misusers, Ayrshire

  Contraception
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment (a,) by contraceptive method, and (b) by source of treatment clinic or general practitioner in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not centrally available. It is for individual health boards to determine the pattern of provision of these services and the extent to which designated facilities are provided.
  111
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of family planning clinics and family planning clinic sessions in each health board in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Premises in which Family Planning Clinics are held

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  SCOTLAND

  182

  181

  183

  184

  185

  Argyll and Clyde

  15

  15

  15

  15

  17

  Ayrshire and Arran

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Borders

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Fife

  14

  14

  14

  14

  15

  Forth Valley

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Grampian

  13

  13

  12

  12

  12

  Greater Glasgow

  36

  36

  41

  43

  43

  Highland

  8

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Lanarkshire

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Lothian

  28

  30

  28

  27

  26

  Tayside

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Islands2

  4

  3

  3

  3

  2

  1 Provisional: 1985 data are used for Greater Glasgow Health Board whose 1986 data are not available.

  2 Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles Health Boards.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (1) National Health Service family planning clinics and (2) general practitioner health centres are designated as training centres for family planning in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not centrally available.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of new patients in each health board diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not centrally available.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of people in Scotland on the waiting list for kidney transplantation in each year from 1975 to the present.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not centrally available.

  Housing
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last held talks with representatives of Scottish tenants' associations, housing co-operatives, Scottish housing associations and local authorities in order to discuss housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I have frequent discussions and informal meetings with a wide range of bodies involved in housing. Last month we met representatives of SSHA tenants and earlier this month I, myself, held meetings with COSLA and representatives of the Scottish Federation of 112
  Housing Associations to discuss housing matters. I have also visited a number of housing co-operatives, housing associations and local authorities.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct local authorities to prepare estimates of the required housebuilding programme for warden-serviced sheltered housing for the elderly between 1988 and 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that health boards, housing authorities and social work departments make adequate provision for the provision of housing in the community for people who are mentally handicapped, mentally ill, elderly or disabled.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provision of housing for these groups is a matter for the agencies concerned having regard to their own assessments of local needs and priorities and available finance. For their part the Government have increased the general allocations of money available to local authorities and to health boards. In addition specific funding for housing for the disabled is made available to the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the total new housebuilding starts by Scottish councils in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the total new housebuilding starts by Scottish housing associations in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (3) if he will give the average house prices in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for the years 1977 to 1986 was published in "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986" which is available in the House Library. Details for 1987 are not yet available.

  Private Rented Houses
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the percentage of houses privately rented in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the number of private rented houses in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the percentage of houses privately rented in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the number of private rented houses in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for the years 1977 to 1986 is published in "Housing and Construction Statistics" which is available in the House Library. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  House Prices
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average house prices in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987, repriced for inflation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Householders
  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of the population in Scotland are single adult householders;

  (2) what proportion of single adult householders in Scotland are over the age of 60 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information was published in SDD statistical bulletin No. 23, July 1986, entitled "Scottish Household Projections: 1983 based." A copy is available from the House Library.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of single adult householders will pay (i) full rates, (ii) partial rates and (iii) no rates in the financial year 1987–88; and if he will list similar figures for the last 10 years.

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

  Council Housing
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage of housing in each of the regions of Scotland which is council housing and the percentage of the capital allocation for council housing which is allocated to the districts in each of the regions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The percentage of housing in each region that is council housing is given column A of the following table and the percentage of the aggregate Scottish HRA capital allocations for 1987–88 made to the districts in each region is in column B.

  Region or Islands Area

  1Column

  Column

  A

  B

  Borders

  30·44

  1·76

  Central

  49·32

  60·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31·96

  3·54

  Fife

  35·94

  6·26

  Grampian

  32·10

  9·35

  Highland

  28·98

  5·91

  Lothian

  31·60

  12·1

  Strathclyde

  47·47

  46·1

  Tayside

  40·06

  6·41

  Orkney

  17·73

  0·24

  Shetland

  29·28

  1·25

  Western Isles

  18·26

  1·01

  1 Source: CIPFA Rating Review.

  Fair Rents
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the average registered fair rents of unfurnished let properties in each year from 1977 to 1987 in Edinburgh;

  (2) if he will give the average registered fair rents of furnished let properties in each year from 1977 to 1987 in Edinburgh;
  114
  (3) if he will give the average registered fair rents of housing association properties in each year from 1977 to 1987 in Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures in the categories are not kept separately for the city of Edinburgh and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the average registered fair rents of furnished let properties in each year from 1977 to 1987 in Scotland;

  (2) if he will give the average registered fair rents of housing association properties in each year from 1977 to 1987 in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested can be obtained for the years 1977 to 1986 from the Table on page 37 of "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986", copies of which are in the Library. The information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Rents
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the average rent rise over the previous year for council houses in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the average rent rise over the previous year for council houses in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is sell out in the following table:

  Average weekly council house rent increase

  Year

  Edinburgh

  Scotland

  £

  £

  1977–78

  0·69

  0·54

  1978–79

  0·54

  0·44

  1979–80

  0·81

  0·50

  1980–81

  1·11

  0·96

  1981–82

  1·91

  1·81

  1982–83

  1·50

  1·33

  1983–84

  1·24

  0·84

  1984–85

  1·25

  0·60

  1985–86

  0·18

  1·08

  1986–87

  0·04

  1·45

  1987–88

  1·61

  1·66

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of companies in the East Kilbride constituency which have received regional development grants in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of companies receiving approvals of new regional development grant in the East. Kilbride parliamentary constituency is given below:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  27

  1986

  82

  19871

  58

  1 to end of June

  Information on the number of companies receiving old regional development grant is not available.
  115
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total level of grant given to companies within the East Kilbride constituency under the regional development grant system in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  Total payments under the new regional development grant scheme to firms in the East Kilbride parliamentary constituency are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985

  0·3

  1986

  1·0

  19871

  0·6

  1 to end of June.

  Information on payments by constituency is not available for the old regional development grant scheme. However, payments of old RDG of over £25,000 to individual businesses in the East Kilbride employment office area are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985

  4·1

  1986

  10·3

  19871

  0·5

  1 to end of June.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, by constituency, the total number of jobs involved in all applications under the regional development grant system in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested for new regional development grant is given in the table. The old regional development grant scheme was not linked directly to job creation.

  Jobs associated with applications for new regional development grant

  Parliamentary constituency

  Year of application

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Angus East

  330

  190

  130

  Ayr

  30

  10

  *

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  380

  360

  90

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  530

  660

  470

  Clydesdale

  460

  480

  280

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1,240

  680

  650

  Cunninghame (North)

  650

  560

  400

  Cunninghame (South)

  1,370

  870

  500

  Dumbarton

  110

  880

  170

  Dundee East

  290

  610

  70

  Dundee West

  580

  820

  420

  East Kilbride

  790

  830

  630

  Eastwood

  230

  210

  160

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  *

  *

  *

  Glasgow Cathcart

  220

  100

  190

  Glasgow Central

  930

  1,580

  830

  Glasgow Garscadden

  50

  210

  50

  Glasgow Govan

  220

  470

  240

  Glasgow Hillhead

  2,160

  2,410

  630

  Glasgow Maryhill

  360

  460

  190

  Glasgow Pollock

  140

  210

  60

  Glasgow Provan

  240

  150

  80

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  100

  420

  270

  Glasgow Shettleston

  340

  930

  250

  Glasgow Springburn

  80

  440

  80

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  210

  550

  120

  Hamilton

  930

  600

  210

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  400

  550

  350

  Linlithgow

  380

  220

  140

  Livingston

  1,630

  1,140

  550

  Monklands East

  670

  480

  160

  Monklands West

  490

  410

  70

  Motherwell North

  340

  1,140

  270

  116

  Parliamentary constituency

  Year of application

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Motherwell South

  360

  570

  700

  North East Fife

  *

  *

  *

  Paisley North

  870

  770

  540

  Paisley South

  40

  10

  330

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  250

  750

  180

  Stirling

  *

  10

  10

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  220

  360

  370

  1 To end of June.

  Notes:

  (1) Some applications were received from firms in non-assisted areas.

  (2) An asterisk denotes a figure which cannot be given in order to avoid disclosing information relating to individual businesses.

  (3) The figures do not include additional jobs which may arise as a result of applications for capital grant not linked directly to job creation.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list at 1987 prices spending on (a) regional development grants and (b) regional selective assistance since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  Gross expenditure on regional selective assistance (section 7) and regional development grant between 1979–80 and 1986–87 at 1986–87 prices are estimated at £252 million and £1,365 million respectively.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on (a) RDG and (b) RSA in 1986–87 and so far in 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  Gross expenditure on regional development grant and regional selective assistance under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in 1986–87 and the first half of 1987–88 is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  11987–88

  Regional Development Grant

  170

  33

  Regional Selective Assistance

  35

  13

  1 April to September.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the budget allocated to Edinburgh by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the budget allocated to Edinburgh by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987, repriced for inflation;

  (3) if he will give the budget allocated to Edinburgh by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987, as a percentage of the corporation's budget.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall ask the Housing Corporation to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the budget allocated to Scotland by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the budget allocated to Scotland by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987, repriced for inflation;

  (3) if he will give the budget allocated to Scotland by the Housing Corporation in each year from 1977 to 1987, as a percentage of the corporation's budget.
  117
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The budget for the Housing Corporation in Scotland is provided by Scottish Office Ministers and resources made available are shown in the table below. Information about expenditure in Scotland as a percentage of expenditure by the Housing Corporation is published in the corporation's annual report.

  Year

  Gross allocation

  Adjusted for inflation

  £ million

  £ million

  1977–78

  l27·1

  61·0

  1978–79

  131·4

  63·8

  1979–80

  148·6

  84·5

  1980–81

  165·7

  96·4

  1981–82

  85·0

  113·6

  1982–83

  108·5

  135·3

  1983–84

  109·6

  130·6

  1984–85

  101·3

  115·6

  1985–86

  104·2

  112·2

  1986–87

  113·8

  118·3

  1987–88

  123·2

  1 Actual expenditure. In these years expenditure was controlled on basis of housing units to be provided rather than budget allocation.

  Housing Grant
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the equivalent housing support grant figure for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987;

  (2) if he will give the equivalent or the housing support grant figure for Edinburgh for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Year

  Amount of grant paid

  £

  1978–79

  1

  1979–80

  11,269,405

  1980–81

  12,517,913

  1981–82

  7,869,440

  1982–83

  2,327,904

  1983–84

  0

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  0

  1987–88

  0

  1 Information for 1978–79 is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give Edinburgh district council's housing support grant or equivalent figure for each year from 1978 to 1985 as a proportion of the total housing support grant figure for Scotland in that year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  5·3

  1980–81

  5·5

  1981–82

  4·9

  1982–83

  2·2

  1983–84

  0

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1 Information for 1978–79 is not readily available.

  118
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the housing support grant or equivalent figure for Scotland, repriced for inflation, for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Amount of grant aid paid at 1987–88 average prices1

  Year

  £

  1978–79

  2—

  1979–80

  371,014,898

  1980–81

  334,474,377

  1981–82

  216,084,137

  1982–83

  130,208,047

  1983–84

  85,935,559

  1984–85

  76,776,675

  1985–86

  69,083,360

  1986–87

  46,470,744

  1987–88

  46,489,693

  1 Using GDP deflators.

  2 Information for 1978–79 is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the housing support grant or equivalent figure for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Year

  Amount of grant paid

  £

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  213,400,000

  1980–81

  228,200,000

  1981–82

  161,900,000

  1982–83

  104,632,870

  1983–84

  72,135,479

  1984–85

  67,211,241

  1985–86

  64,178,219

  1986–87

  44,469,760

  1987–88

  46,489,693

  1 Information for 1978–79 is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage change in housing support grant or equivalent over the previous year for Scotland for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Year

  Percentage change over previous year

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1980–81

  +6·9

  1981–82

  -29·1

  1982–83

  -35·4

  1983–84

  -31·1

  1984–85

  -6·8

  1985–86

  -4·5

  1986–87

  -30·7

  1987–88

  +4·5

  1 Information is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the percentage change in housing

  119
  support grant or equivalent over the previous year for Edinburgh district council for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the following table:

  Percentage change over previous year

  Year

  Per cent.

  1978–79

  1—

  1979–80

  1—

  1980–81

  +11·1

  1981–82

  -37·1

  1982–83

  -70·4

  1983–84

  —

  1984–85

  —

  1985–86

  —

  1986–87

  —

  1987–88

  —

  1 Information is not readily available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the housing support grant or equivalent the figure for Edinburgh district council, repriced for inflation for each year from 1978 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is goven in the following table:

  Amount of grant paid at 1987–88 Average Prices1

  Year

  (£)

  1978–79

  2—

  1979–80

  19,592,864

  1980–81

  18,347,595

  1981–82

  10,503,157

  1982–83

  2,896,908

  1983–84

  0

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  0

  1986–87

  0

  1997–88

  0

  1 Using GDP deflators

  2 Information for 1978–79 is not readily available

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total of new housebuilding starts for private sale in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on houses built for sale is not available centrally. Details of house building starts for the years 1977 to 1986 was published in "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986" which is available in the House Library. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been started in the public and private section in Greenock and Port Glasgow and Strathclyde as a whole in the years 1979–1986.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested for Greenock and Port Glasgow in not held centrally. Numbers of public and private sector housing starts for Strathclyde were published in "Scottish Housing Statistics" which is available in the House Library.

  Housing Investment
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the housing investment allocations made to all housing authorities in Scotland for each of the years 1978–79 to 1987–88 at 1987–88 constant prices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

  Housing Capital
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what principle basis he allocates capital for housing to each of the Scottish district councils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Allocations are made on an assessment of councils' own programmes to tackle evident needs, within resources available, taking account of councils' housing plans and capital programmes and other information available.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received from parents, schools councils, regional councils and other organisations to his consultation paper "School Management and the Role of Parents".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The consultation is still running; I have not yet made a complete analysis of the responses.

  Schoolchildren
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it one of his priorities to encourage the interest of schoolchildren, and young Scots in general, in the learning of science, arts, music, history and of the technical professions.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend's aim is to ensure that young people have the opportunity to study these and other subjects as part of a balanced curriculum, which will equip them for adult life.

  Young People
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific projects he proposed in order to provide for the training, job creation, sport and cultural recreation of Scottish young people to discourage migration south of the border and to ameliorate its effects.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have introduced a wide range of measures to improve and expand training provision and strengthen the employment prospects of young people in Scotland. With the guarantee of a YTS place for all 16 and 17-year-olds no one under 18 need be unemployed. Other measures include the new job training scheme which is primarily geared to the training needs of young people between the ages of 18 and 25; the expansion of the number of places available under the enterprise allowance scheme and the support to employers through the new workers scheme.

  We channel aid for sport through the Scottish Sports Council which will receive £4·7 million in the current financial year including provision for promotional work to increase levels of participation, particularly among the

  121
  13 to 24-year-old age group. We promote cultural activities through the Scottish Arts Council, which will receive £14·1 million in the current financial year and through a range of organisations some of which, like the Scottish Youth Theatre and the National Youth Orchestra of Scotland, are particularly for young people.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek advice from experts, specialised bodies, trade unions, churches and others in order to establish an all-party and Scottish approach to the problems of migration of young Scots to the south and abroad.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it a priority to give practical support to the efforts of scientific, artistic, musical and sporting organisations to attract, train and occupy young people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government support many organisations in all fields making efforts to attract, train and occupy young people.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to support a research programme for the building of low cost, durable, publicly owned homes, with basic amenities, shopping and recreational facilities, for single young people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Guidance on housing for young and other single people was published three years ago in the Scottish Housing Handbook No. 7 "Housing for Single People, Shared Accommodation and Hostels". That guidance was based upon Scottish Office research. In addition, a research report "Housing Conversion to meet changing Needs in the Public Sector", issued by the Building Directorate of the Scottish Office in July, described alternatives to new building, including discussion and examples of provision for single people through adaptation.

  I have no plans at this time for further research into this type of housing.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had talks with the regional and local authorities in Scotland in order to co-ordinate a programme for cultural, educational and scientific activities of Scottish young people in the next four years, aimed at providing them with positive alternatives to drug abuse, hooliganism and at alleviating the impact of unemployment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Youth Training Schemes
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee travel-to-work area are on YTS schemes at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  Youth training scheme figures are not available on either a constituency or travel-to-work area basis. In Dundee local authority district 1,555 young people were participating in youth training schemes at 23 October 1987.

  YTS
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in the Dundee, West constituency are on YTS schemes at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lang
  YTS figures are not available on a constituency basis. In Dundee local authority district 1,555 young people were participating in YTS at 23 October 1987.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many pupils from Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Glasgow, Pollock constituency have obtained places in further or higher education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Midlothian constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what efforts he is making in order to attract European Community support for the Scottish higher education system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Educational establishments in Scotland have been successful in attracting funds in the first round of the European programme for co-operation between education and industry in training for technology—COMETT—and I look forward to significant further funds in the next round.

  I have ensured that all establishments of higher education in Scotland will be fully informed of the opportunities in the new programme to encourage mobility for students within the European Community—ERASMUS—and they have been invited by the ERASMUS bureau of the European Community to make application for inclusion of their courses in the scheme.

  The European Community also offers funds in a range of research and development programmes, in which Scottish educational establishments have been actively encouraged to participate.

  I shall continue to seek to attract European Community support for higher education in Scotland in these programmes and in further European Community initiatives which may be relevant.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Hamilton constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Kilmarnock and Loudoun have

  123
  obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the constituency of Central Fife have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils in (a) Aberdeen and (b) the constituency of Aberdeen, North have obtained places in higher or further education directly after leaving school for each year since 1979; and what percentage of the age group this represents in each year.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the constituency of Falkirk, West have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Lothian regional council secondary schools situated in Edinburgh Central have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Dunfermline, West constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. McAvoy
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Glasgow, Rutherglen constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Livingston have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Paisley, South constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Cumbernauld and Kilsyth have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Monklands, East have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the constituency of Cunninghame, South have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.
  124
  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Renfrew district have obtained places in higher or further education since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979, and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Shettleston constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Education
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of representations he has had on the Government's proposals for school boards and the number that are favourable.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The consultation is still running; I have not yet made a complete analysis of the responses.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of representations he has received on school placements since June and the number of them requesting revision of the legislation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 15 and 20 July. Representations take many forms; it would be impracticable to count or categorise them in the way requested.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Stratkelvin and Bearsden contituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the constituency of East Kilbride have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of applications made to (1) Scottish universities, (2) Scottish central institutions and (3) further education colleges in Scotland, and the number of places available in each of the above, for the years 1979 to 1987.
  125
  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Dumbarton constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the Dundee, West
  126
  constituency have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Pupils (Statistics)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on each school roll and the pupil-teacher ratio in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on individual schools can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Canavan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of Falkirk, West for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Falkirk, West can be obtained from Central regional council.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Glasgow, Pollok can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Midlothian constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Midlothian can be obtained from Lothian regional council.

  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Hamilton constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Hamilton can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. McKelvey
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Kilmarnock and Loudoun for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Kilmarnock and Loudoun can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of Fife, Central for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Fife, Central can be obtained from Fife regional council.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Aberdeen, North constituency for each year since 1979.
  128
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Aberdeen, North can be obtained from Grampian regional council.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Glasgow, Maryhill for each year since 1979, and also give the gender breakdown of both pupils and teachers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Glasgow, Maryhill can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from Glasgow, Maryhill schools have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979; if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year; and if he will give a gender breakdown.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils from the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead have obtained places in higher or further education in each year since 1979. and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Galloway
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of Glasgow, Hillhead for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Glasgow, Hillhead can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Glasgow, Shettleston constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Glasgow, Shettleston can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report, by education authorities, those primary schools in Scotland having fewer than 100 pupils, showing the school roll in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table shows the number of primary schools, by education authority, with less than 100 pupils as at September 1986.

  Education authority

  Number of schools

  Borders

  48

  Central

  39

  Dumfries and Galloway

  79

  Fife

  45

  Grampian

  126

  Highland

  147

  129

  Education authority

  Number of schools

  Lothian

  49

  Strathclyde

  174

  Tayside

  85

  Orkney

  19

  Shetland

  27

  Western Isles

  50

  Scotland

  888

  Details of individual schools can be obtained from the authorities concerned.

  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of East Kilbride for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in East Kilbride can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Dundee, East constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Dundee, East can be obtained from Tayside regional council.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Dumbarton constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Dumbarton can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil- teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Dundee, West constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Dundee West can be obtained from Tayside regional council.

  Mr. Douglas
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Dunfermline, West constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Dunfermline, West can be obtained from Fife regional council.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.
  130
  Mr. John Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Monklands, East for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Monklands East can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Lambie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of Cunninghame, South for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Cunninghame, South can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the pupil to teacher ratios for Glasgow and Strathclyde, respectively, for primary and secondary schools, respectively, in each year since 1979 and list alongside them the pupil to teacher ratios he assumed for each year in his calculation of relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Actual pupil-teacher ratios for primary and secondary schools in Glasgow division arid Strathclyde region are published in the Scottish Education Department's annual statistical bulletin "Pupils arid Teachers in Education Authority Primary and Secondary Schools", copies of which are available in the Library.

  No assumption is made about pupil-teacher ratios for the purpose of determining relevant expenditure for rate support grant.

  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Paisley, South constituency for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Paisley, South can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Livingston for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Livingston can be obtained from Lothian regional council.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil-to-teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Greenock and Port Glasgow for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools:in Greenock and Port Glasgow can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils in Greenock and Port Glasgow have obtained places in higher and further education in each year since 1979; and if he will express that number as a percentage of the age group for each year.
  131
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ration in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Renfrew district for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Renfrew district can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in the Renfrew division of Strathclyde regional council who are currently at secondary school; and what is the pupil to teacher ratio in the Renfrew division.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is contained in Statistical Bulletin No 4/B1/1987, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member. A copy is also held in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total numbers of pupils on school rolls and the pupil to teacher ratio in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in the constituency of Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on schools in Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde can be obtained from Strathclyde regional council.

  School Meals
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average price of a school meal charged by each of the education authorities.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.

  Charge for a fixed price meal

  Region

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and Secondary-

  Pence

  Pence

  Pence

  Borders

  —

  —

  50

  Central

  —

  —

  58

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  61

  Fife

  —

  —

  50

  Grampian

  58

  68

  —

  Highland

  —

  —

  65

  Lothian

  50

  55

  —

  Strathclyde

  —

  —

  63

  Tayside

  —

  —

  60

  Orkney

  —

  —

  60

  Shetland

  —

  —

  60

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  65

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in (a) the Tayside region and (b) the Dundee district authority area are in receipt of free school meals; what percentage of the total number of children in each group this represents; and what are the comparable figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table.
  132

  Tayside Region

  City of Dundee1

  Year

  Number of children in receipt of free school meals

  Column (2) as a percentage of pupils on the register

  Number of children in receipt of free school meals

  Column (4) as a percentage of pupils on the register

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  1979

  9,234

  12·8

  5,622

  16·3

  1980

  8,208

  11·6

  4,978

  14·8

  1981

  5,610

  8·1

  —

  —

  1982

  6,597

  9·7

  —

  —

  1983

  7,380

  11·1

  —

  —

  1984

  7,702

  12·2

  —

  —

  1985

  7,854

  12·7

  —

  —

  1986

  8,154

  13·7

  —

  —

  1987

  7,921

  13·6

  —

  —

  1 Figures were collected on a regional basis after 1980

  Child Care
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the terms of reference of the special review body inquiring into the legal aspects of child care in Scotland under the auspices of the social work services group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The review body's terms of reference, which were announced in the press last August, are as follows:

  "1. To identify, in the light of developments since the implementation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, options for change and improvement in child care law which would simplify and improve arrangements for protecting children at risk and care for children and families in need.

  2. To assess the resource implications of any proposals for amendment of the law.

  3. To report to the Secretary of State."

  The review body will be invited to complete its work within two years. Its membership will be drawn from a wide range of individuals with a contribution to offer and will be led by the Social Work Services Group.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what extra resources his Department is making available to deal with the problems of child abuse.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to paying rate support grant to regional and islands councils, whose social work responsibilities extend to child welfare, the Scottish Office provides substantial financial support for research into various aspects of child abuse, for voluntary organisations such as the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and for the Overnewton child sexual abuse project in Glasgow.

  Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of people to date, in each local authority district prosecuted under section 48 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department issues to Her

  133
  Majesty's inspectors of education as to whether they should comment on whether the local authority allocates enough resources to the school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Auctioneers
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to make the registration of auctioneers obligatory.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Fishery Protection Vessel
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to give approval for the ordering of a new fishery protection vessel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the introduction of the new Norna at the beginning of 1988 will complete the current modernisation programme, the question of approving an order for a new fishery protection vessel does not arise.

  Inshore Fishing (Loch Ryan)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to amend the regulation concerning Loch Ryan under the terms of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so at present but the matter will be considered during the review of the inshore fishing regime next year.

  Alcohol Addiction
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was spent on reseach projects on alcohol addiction by the Home and Health Department in the years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5 February, column 745. The figure for 1986–87 is £13,597.

  Violent Crime
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of crimes of violence against the person in Scotland (a) in the 12 months ended April 1981 and (b) in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures are as follows:

  May 1980 to April 1981: 9,050

  July 1986 to June 1987: 14,110

  For the purpose of this reply, the terms 'crimes of violence against the person' is taken to include all nonsexual crimes of violence—group 1 of the standard classification—apart from robbery, those crimes of indecency—group 2—which contain a violent element, and certain crimes involving malicious and reckless conduct.

  Mental Illness Hospitals
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients were resident in mental illness hospitals in Scotland in each year from 1980 to 1986 and in the first six months of 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At 31 December 1986 there were 14,901 residents in mental illness hospitals in Scotland. Comparable data for 1980–85 are given in "Scottish Health Statistics," copies of which are in the Library. Information for 1987 is not yet available.

  Enterprise Zone (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding the possibility of creating an enterprise zone in Greenock or Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Lang
  The only recent representations have been from Inverclyde district council. The case for an enterprise zone remains under consideration but, as my right hon. and learned Friend has indicated to the district council, no decision can be taken until the findings on the current evaluation of the enterprise zone experiment have been fully considered.

  Gynaecological Operations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by health district the number of gynaecological operations waiting to he performed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of persons waiting for in-patient hospital treatment—not necessarily operations—in the specialty of gynaecology is given for each health board at 31 March 1987 in the following table. The figures are provisional.

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  758

  Ayrshire and Arran

  591

  Borders

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  567

  Fife

  442

  Forth Valley

  378

  Grampian

  1,564

  Greater Glasgow

  1,664

  Highland

  410

  Lanarkshire

  394

  Lothian

  1,208

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Tayside

  192

  Western Isles

  24

  Scotland

  8,219

  Health Authorities (Review of Priorities)
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish health authorities' review of priorities for the eighties and nineties will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This report was prepared by a working group set up by the Scottish Health Service Planning Council and is a working document at present under consideration by the planning council which is collecting views about its recommendations from the organisations from which council members are drawn. The council has sent out over 1,000 copies of the report to all
  135
  health board members and senior officials, the Common Services Agency, Scottish Home and Health Department, the universities with medical faculties, the chief scientist and the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils and to all members of the national consultative committees and their sub-committees. Arrangements have been made to place copies in the Library of the House.

  Legal Aid Regulations
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to amend the Criminal Legal Aid Regulations so far as to remove those provisions which at present prevent an accused person from obtaining assistance at any subsequent diet when he has pleaded guilty without professional help, with the result that a person who has previously been sentenced to imprisonment and is at risk of having this liberty is totally disqualified from being represented under legal aid.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is one of several aspects of the legal aid regime on which I have received representations. I hope to reach a view on all the proposals made to me before the end of the year.

  Skoal Bandits
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take at the expiry on 31 December of the agreement with United States Tobacco International Inc. with regard to the manufacture and sale of Skoal Bandits.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government are currently considering the existing voluntary agreement on the promotion of Skoal Bandits. Negotiations have taken place between officials of the Department of Health and Social Security and the company about revising the agreement, but matters have not yet been concluded.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current population in each of Scotland's prisons, young offenders' institutions and other detention centres; in each case how many of these prisoners are on remand; and what is the capacity of each institution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 20 October 1987 the position was as follows:

  Total population

  Of which: remand

  Capacity

  Prisons

  Aberdeen

  163

  34

  151

  Barlinnie

  1,069

  366

  983

  Barlinnie Special Unit

  7

  —

  8

  Cornton Vale

  157

  43

  177

  Dungavel

  143

  —

  147

  Edinburgh

  629

  127

  547

  Friarton

  81

  —

  82

  Glenochil

  397

  —

  496

  Inverness

  101

  27

  87

  Low Moss

  336

  —

  400

  Noranside

  104

  —

  115

  Penninginhame

  65

  —

  75

  Perth1

  422

  48

  519

  136

  Total population

  Of which: remand

  Capacity

  Peterhead

  109

  —

  180

  Shotts2

  328

  —

  351

  Young offenders institutions

  Castle Huntly

  132

  —

  134

  Cornton Vale

  31

  —

  41

  Dumfries

  124

  34

  141

  Greenock

  170

  —

  180

  Polmont

  432

  44

  408

  Detention Centre

  Glenochil

  135

  —

  182

  Remand unit

  Longriggend

  274

  248

  194

  TOTAL

  5,409

  971

  5,598

  1 Only 440 places currently available.

  2 Two halls (177 places) at Shotts not yet available.

  Ministerial Engagements (Members' Attendance)
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his policy regarding attendance by hon. Members at ministerial engagements in their constituencies;

  (2) what constituencies he and his junior Ministers have visited in the past year; and on which occasions the local hon. Member was invited to attend;

  (3) what is his practice regarding the arrangements for notifying hon. Members that he or one of his Ministers is to visit their constituency; and what period of notice is normally given.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My ministerial colleagues and I aim to visit all parts of Scotland as regularly as opportunities arise and other ministerial commitments permit. Attendance at ministerial engagements, wherever they take place, is a matter for Ministers and their hosts. Hon. Members are however normally informed, and are given reasonable notice, whenever Ministers are attending public engagements within their constituencies.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the estimated increased public spending in Scotland as a result of the demands for accommodation for old-age pensioners for 1988 to 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of retirement pensioners who, during the years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, will require accommodation provisions paid from public funds in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new retirement pensioners in Scotland required places in specialised homes provided by the National Health Service, for each year since 1975.
  137
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many National Health Service hospitals have been built and put into operation in Scotland for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of all hospital developments are not held centrally, as minor capital projects are detailed to health boards. The information for major capital projects is as follows:

  Year

  Number of hospitals

  1980

  10

  1981

  6

  1982

  5

  1983

  10

  1984

  6

  1985

  4

  1986

  4

  11987

  4

  Total

  49

  1 To date.

  NHS (Hamilton)
  Mr. Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1979 (a) the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in the Hamilton constituency and (b) the number of National Health Service staff in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally on a constituency basis.

  Medical Teaching and Training
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with the British Medical Association Scottish universities teaching medical staff the requirements and functioning of medical teaching and training in the light of the new demands of primary care and patient treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no meetings with the British Medical Association or representatives of the Scottish universities to discuss teaching and training. From time to time, he has informal meetings with representatives of these bodies at which many subjects are discussed and officials of my Department meet regularly postgraduate medical deans to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  The undergraduate curriculum in medical schools is a matter for the universities to determine taking account of guidance issued from time to time by the General Medical Council. The Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practitioners has a similar responsibility for the standards of postgraduate training and these bodies will be well aware of the demands facing the medical profession.

  Students
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students from countries other than Great Britain there are in Scottish universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no polytechnics in Scotland: the nearest equivalents are the central institutions. In 1985–86 the numbers of students, including postgraduates, from countries other than Great Britain who attended Scottish universities and central institutions were 5,580 and 1,180 respectively.

  Medical Staff (Glasgow)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of new full-time medical staff serving the medical needs of the population of Glasgow for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ward Closures
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many National Health Service hospital wards closed either permanently or temporarily in Scotland during 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986;

  (2) how many National Health Service hospital wards have been closed in Scotland, for each year since 1975, either temporarily or permanently due to (a) shortage of medical staff, (b) shortage of deficient equipment, or (c) lack of funds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Operational management of hospitals is a matter for individual health boards. Whilst from time to time we become aware of temporary bed or ward closures which may occur for a variety of reasons, there is no central record which is either comprehensive or detailed.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy urgently to publish a consultative paper regarding a Scottish assembly.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No.

  Grampian Region (Specialist Treatment)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what areas of specialist medicine or surgery require to be provided for residents of Grampian outwith the area of Grampian health board; how many patients have had to be so treated for each of the years since 1979; what has been the average waiting time for each specialty; and what plans he has to remedy the situation to provide adequate treatment within the area of Grampian health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The areas of specialist medicine or surgery in which Grampian residents are treated outwith Grampian health board area are cardiac surgery, orthopaedic surgery, neuro surgery and spina paralysis.

  The statistical information requested is as follows:

  139

  Cardiac Surgery

  (Figures available in this category from 1981)

  Number of operations

  Average waiting time (in weeks) for operations Glasgow

  1981

  36

  15

  1982

  26

  19

  1983

  11

  19

  1984

  74

  17

  1985

  30

  11

  1986

  112

  21

  19871

  101

  23

  1 To 31 August.

  Other specialties

  Orthopaedics

  Neuro surgery

  Spinal paralysis

  1979

  843

  46

  —

  1980

  843

  49

  —

  1981

  876

  43

  —

  1982

  846

  25

  —

  1983

  1030

  32

  7

  1984

  1106

  28

  15

  19851

  1137

  10

  6

  1 Latest available figures.

  The figures relate to patients treated in each specialty outwith Grampian. Orthopaedic patients are treated in Stracathro hospital, Tayside by Grampian surgeons. Waiting list figures are not available for these specialties.

  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is at present a committee examining cardiac surgery in Scotland. With regard to the other specialties, it is a matter for individual boards to decide on the level of service necessary taking account of the number of patients requiring treatment. I understand, however, that Grampian health board has long-term plans to provide accommodation in Grampian for its orthopaedic patients presently treated in Stracathro hospital, Brechin.

  Aberdeen, North (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which Ministers at his Department have visited the constituency of Aberdeen, North on how many occasions and for what purpose since 1979; and when such visits took place.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is not readily available.

  Grampian Regional Council (Social Work Department)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to privatise the services of the social work department of Grampian regional council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  Scottish Homes (Government's Proposals)
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the number of responses he has received on the Government's proposals on Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer today to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of people in sheltered accommodation in each local authority district.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sexual Assault
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Home and Health Department's report on prosecuting sexual assault.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend has today given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Wray).

  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations that have sent him comments on the Scottish Home and Health Department's report "Prosecuting Sexual Assaults" and if he intends to implement the recommendations in the report.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking, following publication of the Scottish Home and Health Department's report "Prosecuting Sexual Assault"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have to date received comments from the rape crisis centres for Edinburgh and Strathclyde on the Scottish Office social research study "Prosecuting Sexual Assault". The report did not contain formal recommendations but a number of changes in procedures relating to the prosecution of alleged sexual assaults have been taken in the light of the conclusions of the study. In particular, restrictions on evidence at trials of rape and other sexual offences have been introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985. The effects of these changes are now being monitored as part of an independent research study funded by my Department.

  Dogs
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to deal with the problems of stray dogs and canine fouling of public places.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 13 March 1987, at column 334 and on 24 April 1987, at column 705.

  A74
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what date he estimates that work will start on bringing up to motorway standards all the remaining stretches of the A74 between Glasgow and Carlisle; and by what date he estimates that this work will be completed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The timetable for upgrading of the A74 to motorway will depend on the outcome of feasibility studies that are under way, and on the time taken to complete any necessary statutory procedures.

  Forfar Bypass
  Mr. Bill Walker
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the up-to-date position on the Forfar bypass.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have already implemented a number of adjustments to the signing and road markings at the junctions which should greatly assist drivers and, as a result of discussions with the Tayside police, who have monitored the situation since the opening of the bypass, I have now decided to provide deceleration lanes at both of the staggered junctions. It is hoped that this work will be completed by Christmas.

  M80 Motorway
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the line of the proposed M80 motorway between Stepps and Haggs; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed consideration of alternative viable routes is continuing, but it will be some time before a decision on a preferred route can be made.

  Building Agency
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to devote central Government funds to creating a building agency similar to the English Estates Agency funded by the Department of Trade and Industry in England.

  Mr. Lang
  No. the Scottish Development Agency already performs the same function in Scotland as does English Estates in England.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will be seeking funds from central Government for a crime prevention campaign in Glasgow similar to that recently funded by the Home Department in London for the Metropolitan police campaign.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In common with the rest of Scotland, Glasgow already benefits from the substantial contribution which the Government make towards crime prevention through, for example, the 51 per cent. specific grant on police expenditure, the community programme national crime prevention initiative and the urban programme. In addition, the Government have allocated £250,000 to crime prevention publicity measures in Scotland in the current financial year.

  Green Belt (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review his decision of February 1985 to force the incorporation of 2,300 more private housing units on green-belt and green infill sites in and around Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such decision. He approved in February 1986 the revised Lothian region structure plan. One of the policies in the plan requires the City of Edinburgh district council to identify sites for a further 142
  2,300 houses to be available after 1991. Where these sites are found is essentially a matter for the district council. It is the responsibility of the regional council to monitor the implementation of the plan and bring forward alterations.

  Royal Edinburgh Hospital
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will intervene to resolve the staffing shortage at the Royal Edinburgh hospital and provide the health board with the funding necessary to maintain the welfare of patients.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The staffing of the Royal Edinburgh hospital is a matter for the Lothian health board, which is among the best funded health authorities in Great Britain.

  Multiple Tenancies
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to introduce legislation to enable local councils more effectively to prevent the undesirable proliferation of multiple tenancies in tenements.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to do so.

  Anti-Dampness Measures
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make provision for local authorities to undertake effective anti-dampness measures in houses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for the local authorities themselves to decide what measures to take to combat dampness in their housing stocks and what proportion of the resources available to them to spend on the problem. In deciding on levels of capital allocations for next year, we will again pay particular attention to authorities' plans to deal with dampness.

  System-built Housing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make provision for local authorities to tackle Orlit and similar system-build defects.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is one of the types of work that local authorities tackle, according to their own priorities, from within the unhypothecated capital allocations made available to them.

  Schools (Charges)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to introduce charges for certain subjects into Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no plans to change the present arrangements in Scotland which seem to be generally well understood and to work satisfactorily.

  Arthritis
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the number of specialist units in Scotland available for the treatment of children suffering from serious arthritis.
  143
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Current practice and policy is to treat children suffering from arthritis in facilities specifically designed for children and not in specialist arthritis units.

  Schools (Sport)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what inquiries are currently being undertaken by his Department concerning the promotion of sport in schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have encouraged the Scottish Sports Council to promote new sporting opportunities for school children and to give a new impetus to competitive sport. I hope the seminar on this subject which they are organising on 28 October will be well supported and followed through by education and sporting bodies.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made for liaison between his Department, the education authorities and the Scottish Sports Council for the promotion of sport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Promoting sport is primarily a matter for the Scottish Sports Council. Arrangements for liaison between the Scottish Office, the Council and the many other bodies concerned with sport, including the education authorities, are kept under continual review.

  Social Work Departments
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist for consultation between local authority social work departments; and if he will make a statement.

  Name

  Date of first appointment

  Date of present appointment

  Term of office expires

  A. R. Devereux (Chairman)

  1 March 1980

  1 March 1985

  28 February 1990

  R. D. Cramond (Member)

  1 January 1985

  1 January 1985

  31 March 1988

  Mrs. S. G. Bell (Member)

  1 October 1983

  1 October 1986

  30 September 1989

  J. B. B. Stewart (Member)

  5 November 1985

  5 November 1985

  4 November 1988

  D. Kinloch Anderson (Member)

  1 October 1986

  1 October 1986

  30 September 1989

  N. Renfrew (Member)

  1 October 1986

  1 October 1986

  30 September 1989

  The board normally consists of a chairman and six members. The current vacancy will be filled shortly.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has for consulting with the chairpersons of health boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I meet all health board chairmen together three times a year. I meet individual chairmen at other times to discuss particular issues.

  School Boards
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the cost of preparing, printing and
  144
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials are regularly in touch with Social Work Directors and their Departments but arrangements for consultation between local authorities are not a matter for my right hon. Friend.

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the decision by the Scottish Tourist Board to give financial assistance to the redevelopment of Butlins holiday centre at Ayr was subject to ministerial approval; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Ministerial approval was given to the Scottish tourist board's financial assistance of £1·2 million to the re-development of the Butlin's site at the Heads of Ayr. Investment decisions of this scale demonstrate growing confidence in the tourism industry in Scotland. The private sector commitment is essential if such developments are to proceed. The government is pleased to be able to bring such projects—with clear economic benefits—to fruition with financial support through the Scottish tourist board.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board: and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met the Chairman of the Scottish tourist board at Scotland's travel fair on 6 May. My noble Friend the Minister of State regularly meets the chairman to discuss tourism policy and strategic issues of importance to the industry.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the Scottish Tourist Board, stating the date of their original appointment, the date of their present appointment and when their current term of office expires.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  distributing 800,000 leaflets, dealing with Her Majesty's Government's proposals for school boards will be borne wholly by his Department: and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what was the total cost of preparing, printing and distributing 800,000 leaflets dealing with Her Majesty's Government's proposals for school boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total cost of printing and distribution was £23,225. This will be met from Scottish Office votes.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children are receiving free school meals in each of the education authorities in Scotland, expressed as a percentage of the total number of children taking school meals.
  145
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information taken from the annual census of school meals undertaken in January 1987 is set out in the table.

  Number of Children receiving free meals as a percentage of the total number of children taking school meals

  Region

  Per cent.

  Borders

  24·0

  Central

  46·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24·3

  Fife

  40·2

  Grampian

  20·0

  Highland

  31·7

  Lothian

  30·4

  Strathclyde

  56·8

  Tayside

  37·2

  Orkney

  25·4

  Shetland

  10·0

  Western Isles

  42·6

  Scotland

  43·5

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of Civil Service posts, by constituency and by Department, listed by grade and sex in each of the years since 1979.

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

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of tenants living in public sector rented accommodation in the constituency of East Kilbride in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Rosyth Bypass
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Rosyth bypass.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A study of the route options has been completed and a preferred line for the proposed bypass has been identified. It is hoped that draft orders will be published early in 1988.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on Scottish Homes; and if he will list the organisations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received 247 responses to the consultation paper "Scottish Homes—A New Agency for Housing in Scotland" from organisations. The organisations are listed as follows. In addition, a number of letters referring wholly or partly to Scottish Homes have been received from individuals but these have not generally offered any comment on the substance of the proposals contained in the consultation document.

  Scottish Special Housing Association

  The Housing Corporation

  Hillhead (Glasgow) Community Council

  The Central Springburn Community Council

  146

  Faifley Community Council

  Springboig Community Council

  Shettleston Community Council

  Toryglen Community Council

  Dumbarton East Community Council

  Wyndford and District Community Council

  Harthill and Eastfield Community Council

  Linnvale, North and South Drumry Community Council

  Barrhead Community Council

  North Motherwell Community Council

  Govan Community Council

  Hillhead Community Council

  Ettrick and Lauderdale District Council

  Kincardine and Deeside District Council

  City of Aberdeen

  Falkirk District Council

  Argyll and Bute District Council

  Kyle and Carrick District Council

  Stewartry District Council

  Annandale and Eskdale District Council

  Cunninghame District Council

  North East Fife District Council

  Renfrew District Council

  Clackmannan District Council

  City of Edinburgh District Council

  Nithsdale District Council

  Gordon District Council

  East Kilbride District Council

  Banff and Buchan District Council

  Inverness District Council

  Badenoch and Strathspey District Council

  Sutherland District Council

  City of Dundee District Council

  West Lothian District Council

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council

  Angus District Council

  City of Glasgow

  Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council

  Roxburgh District Council

  Dunfermline District Council

  Stirling District Council

  Inverclyde District Council

  East Lothian District Council

  Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  Clydesdale District Council

  Moray District Council

  Berwickshire District Council

  Strathclyde Campaign for Investment in Council Housing

  Glenrothes Development Corporation

  Livingston Development Corporation

  Irvine Development Corporation

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  Shetland Islands Council

  Orkney Islands Council

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Lothian Regional Council Social Work Department

  SLANT (Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns)

  Strathclyde Chief Housing Officers Group

  Institute of Housing (Scottish Housing Training Advisory Board)

  Institute of Housing Scottish Branch

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Chief Officers Housing Group Scottish Branch

  Broomhouse Housing Association (1986) Ltd.

  Milnbank Housing Association Ltd.

  Viewpoint Housing Association (Benevolent) Ltd.

  Queen's Cross Housing Association Ltd.

  Kingdom Housing Association Ltd.

  The New Housing Association Ltd.

  Key Housing Association Ltd.

  SHARE Training for Housing Associations

  Edinvar Housing Association Ltd.

  Partick Housing Association Ltd.

  Hjaltland Housing Association Ltd.

  Dalmuir Park Housing Association Ltd.

  Caledonian: Self-Builder's: Housing Association Ltd.

  Servite Housing Association (Scotland) Ltd.

  Port of Leith Housing Association Ltd.

  147

  James Watt Housing Association Ltd.

  Central and East Clydebank Housing Association Granton Housing Association Ltd.

  Hillcrest Housing Association Ltd.

  Springburn and Possilpark Housing Association Ltd.

  Link Housing Association Ltd.

  Hillhead Housing Association Ltd.

  Maryhill Housing Association Ltd.

  Govanhill Housing Association Ltd.

  Eildon Housing Association Ltd.

  Fountainbridge Housing Association Ltd.

  Philemon Housing Association Ltd.

  Meadowside and Thornwood Housing Association Linthouse Housing Association Ltd.

  The Ark Housing Association Ltd.

  Grampian Housing Association Ltd.

  Charing Cross Housing Association Ltd.

  Culdion Housing Association Ltd.

  Edinburgh Housing Management Forum

  Loreburn Housing Association Ltd.

  Cloch Housing Association Ltd.

  Kirk Care Housing Association Ltd.

  Lorn and Mull Housing Association Ltd.

  Reidvale Housing Association Ltd.

  Viewpoint Housing Association Ltd.

  Rutherglen Housing Association

  Clydeside Federation of Community Based Housing Associations

  Central Govan Housing Association Ltd.

  Barony Housing Association Ltd.

  Williamsburgh Housing Association Ltd.

  Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Associations

  Parkhead Housing Association Ltd.

  Langstane Housing Association Ltd.

  Castlehill Housing Association Ltd.

  Elderpark Housing Association Ltd.

  Gorgie/Dalry Housing Association Ltd.

  Bield Housing Association Ltd.

  Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd.

  Whiteinch and Scotstoun Housing Association Ltd.

  Orkney Housing Association Ltd.

  Shettleston Housing Association Ltd.

  Pollockshields Housing Association Ltd.

  Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

  Speirs Housing Management Co-operative

  New Generation Housing Society Limited

  Calvay Co-operative Limited

  Castlemilk East Housing Co-operative Ltd.

  Southdeen Co-operative

  Lister Housing Co-operative Ltd.

  Confederation of Scottish Housing Co-ops

  West Gear Elderly Forum

  Shelter (Scottish Campaign for the Homeless)

  Scottish Council for Single Homeless

  Glasgow Council for Single Homeless

  The Salvation Army

  Edinburgh Council for the Single Homeless

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  Priesthill Nitshill Community Housing Working Party

  Rights Office, FIFE

  Glasgow Group (International Year of Shelter for the Homeless)

  Homes and Jobs

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  Scottish Council YWCA Housing Society Ltd.

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Glasgow Special Housing Group

  Age Concern Scotland

  Scottish Homeless Group

  The Scottish Council Development and Industry

  British Linen Bank Limited

  The Building Societies Association

  Scottish Landscape Industry Group

  CASCO Consultants on Urban Renewal

  T. R. McDougall Property Agents

  Assist Architects Ltd.

  Strathclyde Community Business Limited

  148

  Gardner Information Services Ltd.

  Property Owners and Factors Associations, Scotland, Ltd.

  Edinburgh College of Art School of Town and Country Planning

  Community Business Scotland

  Barratt Scotland Ltd.

  Scottish Building Employers' Federation

  Landscape Institute Scotland

  Speyhawk Public Limited Company

  Dumfries Community Housing

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland Clazy Enterprises

  James Cunning, Young and Partners

  The Training Charter

  GEAR Appraisal Group (GAG)

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Scottish Development Agency

  Housing Association Liaison Project (HALO)

  5 Broomhill Lane Tenants Committee

  North Motherwell SSHA Tenants Association

  Orlit Residents Association

  Shortlees Tenants Association

  Hillhouse Tenants Association

  Renfrew District Tenants Co-ordinating Group

  Partick Tenants & Residents Association

  Broomhill Lane Residents Association

  Moredun Community Association

  Dumbarton & Clydebank SSHA Tenants Federation

  Fortbhz House Tenants Association

  Seamore Street Tenants Association

  Cochran Castle Tenants & Residents Association

  Balornock East Tenants Association

  SSHA Niddrie Mill Tenants Association

  Mountfleurie SSHA Tenants Association

  Barrhead & Neilston Federation of Tenants Association

  Shettleston SSHA Tenants Association

  Pathead Tenants Association

  Ruchazie Tenants Association

  O'Wood Residents Association

  10 Broomhill Lane Tenants Committee

  Rigside SSHA Tenants Association

  Findlay Residents Association SSHA

  Easthouses SSHA Residents Association

  Wylie Street Tenants' Association

  Dumbarton District Housing Federation

  Orlit Action Group

  Wheatlands Estate Association

  Whitfields Multis Residents Association

  Lothian Federation of SSHA Tenants Associations

  Glasgow South SSHA Tenants Forum

  Inverelyde Tenants Group

  SSHA Residents' Group

  Tenant Participation Advisory Group

  Whitfield Steering Council

  Wester Hailes Representative Group

  Harthill SSHA Tenants Association

  Castlepark and Eglinton Community Association

  Larkfield Social Strategy Group

  Bilston Tenants Residents Association

  Wyndford Tenants Association

  Muirhead SSHA Tenants/Residents Association

  Shortlees Tenants Association

  Scottish Tenants Organisation

  Cambuslang Tenants Action Combine

  Westhouses Residents Association

  Craigbank Tenants Association

  Inverkeithing SSHA Tenants Association

  Graeme Park, Editor of Liberal Focus

  Shetland Labour Party

  Councillor Alex Graham, Inverness District Council

  Scottish National Party Renfrew West/Inverclyde Constituency Association

  Scottish Liberal Party

  Scottish Committee Communist Party

  Labour Party Scottish Council

  Stirling District Council Conservative Group David Marshall MP

  Councillor William Handie, Lothian Regional Council

  Councillor James Rutherford JP Renfrewshire District Council

  149

  City of Dundee District Council Conservative Group

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Transport and General Workers' Union

  Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

  Association of Scientific Technical and Managerial Staffs

  National and Local Government Officers Association (Scottish)

  Supervisory, Technical, Administrative, Managerial and Professional Section of UCATT

  NALGO Scottish Special Housing Association Branch Technical Officers and the Housing Corporation in Scotland SSHA North Region Technical Group

  Electronics Industry
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are employed in the electronics industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Total employment in the electronics industry in Scotland in 1986 is provisionally estimated to be some 42,600. The estimates are derived from the regional data system.

  Jordanhill College of Education
  Mr. Milian
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the report of the feasibility study into the use of Jordanhill college of education to accommodate paramedical courses.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Copies of the report are available from the Scottish Education Department on request.

  Education (Consultative Document)
  Mr. Millan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations which have so far commented on his recent consultative document on school boards as being in favour of the proposed ceiling lowers and those who have opposed the proposal ceiling lowers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The consultation is still running; I have not yet made a complete analysis of the responses.

  X-ray Equipment
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department last conducted a survey of safety standards of National Health Service X-ray equipment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  X-ray equipment in use in the Scottish Health Service is subjected to regular maintenance and safety checks under maintenance agreements made by health boards. In addition, the equipment is subject to regular inspections by the board's radiation protection adviser to check radiation output levels and radiation safety aspects.

  Community Care
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Community care is an important issue on which my right hon. and learned Friend receives from time to time representations from a range of interests including Members of Parliament, statutory agencies, voluntary organisations and members of the public. We have consistently made it clear that we are committed to 150
  promoting a policy of care in the community for such groups as the mentally and physically handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly.

  Woodilee Hospital
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement reporting the proposals for a new build policy at Woodilee hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My Department is currently considering proposals submitted by the Greater Glasgow health board.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the incidence of leukaemia as reported by each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the number of cases of leukaemia occurring each year in Scotland and the incidence of the condition is contained in "Scottish Health Statistics" which is published annually by the information services division of the common services agency of the Scottish Health Service. A copy is available in the Library.

  Springburn Job Initiative
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates that the Springburn job initiative will begin.

  Mr. Lang
  STRIDE, the job-creation enterprise set-up by British Rail, is already in operation and discussions on a wider economic initiative involving the Scottish Development Agency, local authorities and other local interests continue. The agency shares our wish to see the initiative launched as soon as possible, but this depends on agreement being reached on a programme of action and the necessary administrative arrangements.

  STRID
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government funds have been made available to STRIDE in order to re-employ redundant railway workers.

  Mr. Lang
  None. STRIDE is funded solely by British Rail.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Michael J.Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of nursery school education in Glasgow, Springburn and on what steps he intends to take in increasing nursery school places.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statute affords regional and islands councils discretion over the level and form of nursery education provided in their areas. I am not disposed to intervene in this matter.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to improve job opportunities for under 25s in Glasgow, Springburn.

  Mr. Lang
  We shall continue with our successful policies of keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise, sustaining competitiveness in industry and strengthening
  151
  the private sector, which are the key to creating a stronger economy and reducing unemployment in Springburn as elsewhere. The youth training scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds, the new job training scheme aimed primarily at 18 to 25-year-olds together with the expansion of places available under the enterprise allowance scheme and the assistance to employers through the new workers scheme will all help young people into employment.

  Council Housing (Glasgow)
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he is giving to Glasgow district council in order to enable it to improve the housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Glasgow district council has received capital allocations in the current financial year of £85·65 million for expenditure on its own housing stock and £53 million for expenditure on housing in the private sector. Furthermore, the council will augment its mainstream expenditure on housing projects by an additional £140 million over the next three to four years through the use of a covenant scheme facility which we made available last year.

  Community Programmes (Fraud)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) persons proceeded against and (b) convictions in Scotland since 1984 for offences relating to the fraudulent misuse of misappropriation of moneys advanced by the Manpower Services Commission in connection with community programmes.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand from the Manpower Services Commission that, according to its central records, there is no record of a case in Scotland resulting in prosecution or conviction since 1984.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to estimate the number of full-time jobs, or full-time equivalents, created by the Inverclyde initiative: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to estimate the number of jobs created directly by the Inverclyde initiative. I am satisfied that the initiative is making sound progress and that major projects in prospect, such as the Customs House quay development, will significantly increase employment prospects in the area.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate for the percentage fall in the real value of manufacturing investment in Scotland between 1980 and 1985.

  Mr. Lang
  The percentage fall in the real value of net capital expenditure by manufacturing industry in Scotland between 1980 and 1985 is estimated to have been 2·5 per cent.

  Private Medicine
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals, exclusively for the practice of private medicine, have been built since 1979.
  152
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two private hospital developments have been notified to the Secretary of State since 1979, one in 1981 and one in 1982.

  House Building
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total new house building starts for private sale in each year from 1977 to 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on houses built for sale is not available centrally. Details of housebuilding starts for the years 1977 to 1986 was published in "Scottish Housing Statistics 1986" which is available in the House Library. Figures for 1987 are not yet available.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Contraception
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many and which contraceptives are listed on the drug tariff for general medical practitioners.

  Mr. Newton
  There are currently 35 contraceptive drugs which can be dispensed free of charge. These are listed in part XVI of the drug tariff. In addition, there is a range of contraceptive appliances set out in part 1XA of the tariff. A copy of the tariff is available in the Library.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many general practitioners in England hold the Joint Committee on Contraception certificate in family planning;

  (2) how many and what percentage of general practitioners have formal training which would equip them to insert intra-uterine devices.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that this information is not held centrally. Advice from the Joint Committee on Contraception indicates that up to 16 October 1987 a total of about 22,500 certificates had been issued to doctors in the United Kingdom. It is not possible to be more specific.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment (1) by contraceptive method and (2) by source of treatment clinic or general practitioners in England for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is contained in the tables. A detailed analysis of contraceptive services provided by general medical practitioners is not held centrally.

  Health authority family planning services—England clinic and domiciliary

  Numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment by primary birth control method chosen or already in use

  1984

  1985

  Oral contraceptives

  831,000

  788,000

  IUD

  235,000

  224,000

  Cap/Diaphragm

  128,000

  133,000

  Sheath

  183,000

  187,000

  Chemicals

  8,000

  8,000

  Rhythm

  300

  600

  Female sterilisation

  3,100

  1,700

  Vasectomy

  15,000

  14,000

  153

  1984

  1985

  Other

  13,000

  16.000

  None

  106,000

  122,000

  TOTAL

  1,523,000

  1,494,000

  Contraceptive services provided by general medical practitioners in England

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Total number of patients

  2,374,400

  2,455,800

  2,571,000

  Fitting IUD

  131,800

  127,000

  120,400

  Other than IUD

  2,242,600

  2,328,800

  2,450,600

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals exist for general practitioners to prescribe condoms as part of the AIDS prevention campaign.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no such proposals.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on National Health Service family planning clinics making a charge for condoms: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Our guidance to health authorities in DHSS circular HSC(1S)32 states that there should be no charge for contraceptive supplies which are prescribed and dispensed, but that in cases where a patient does not wish to consult the doctor, supplies of non-medical methods should be available on sale at clinics. Our advice is that the charge should reflect the purchase price paid by the health authority plus 10 per cent. for handling expenses, and VAT.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the provision of free National Health Service contraceptive advice, treatment and supplies: and if he will make a statement:

  (2) if he intends to impose a prescription charge for contraceptive supplies provided by the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Contraceptive services are available free of charge as part of the National Health Service and we have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average annual cost per person to the National Health Service of providing (a) the oral contraceptive, and (b) the intra-uterine device through (i) National Health Service family planning clinics, and (ii) general medical practitioner.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not available in the form requested. For all health authority family planning services the average annual cost per person is £21·30.

  For general medical practitioner services the average annual costs per person, excluding pharmacists costs, which are not available, are as follows:

  Intra uterine device—£39.·40

  Other contraceptives—£16·50

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many condoms have been distributed through National Health Service family planning clinics in each of the last five years.

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

  Births (Costs)
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost to the public sector of the average birth.

  Mrs. Currie
  The estimated gross current health and personal social services expenditure per birth in 1985–86 was around £1,220.

  Family Planning Services
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total annual cost of National Health Service family planning services for each of the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86.

  Mr. Newton
  The expenditure on family planning provided through the community health services and general medical practitioners (fees and drugs) for England for each of the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 is as follows:

  Expenditure on Family Planning Services—England

  £ million

  1982–83

  59

  1983–84

  66

  1984–85

  71

  1985–86

  76

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many and which district health authorities provide designated young people's birth control advisory sessions in England.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that we do not collect this information centrally.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to how many doctors' sessions Brook Advisory Centres has held in each of its centres in each of the last five years: and what is the estimate for the number of doctors' sessions for the coming financial year.

  Mr. Newton
  Brook Advisory Centres' annual reports record that the number of doctors' sessions in each of their centres in each of the last 5 calendar years was as follows:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Avon

  715

  653

  610

  573

  575

  Birmingham

  2,739

  2,814

  2,742

  2,682

  2,776

  Coventry

  124

  131

  136

  127

  103

  Edinburgh

  1,122

  1,116

  939

  914

  846

  London

  3,019

  3,238

  3,320

  3,173

  3,081

  Merseyside

  83

  92

  110

  152

  153

  North East Lancashire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  1 Opened June 1986.

  We have no estimate of the numbers for 1987 and 1988.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of family planning clinics and family planning clinic sessions in each regional health authority in England for the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the tables.
  155

  Family Planning Services 1981–85: England

  Region

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Family planning sessions

  Northern

  11,211

  10,590

  10,791

  11,113

  10,436

  Yorkshire

  11,731

  12,410

  12,106

  11,998

  11,966

  Trent

  13,572

  15,027

  15,151

  15,286

  14,994

  East Anglia

  5,827

  5,819

  5,848

  5,853

  5,674

  North West Thames

  22,119

  19,562

  20,200

  20,069

  20,048

  North East Thames

  20,088

  20,805

  21,643

  20,363

  21,970

  South East Thames

  18,795

  18,134

  19,944

  19,920

  19,024

  South West Thames

  16,921

  16,341

  16,452

  16,041

  15,346

  Wessex

  9,957

  10,136

  9,952

  10,006

  10,500

  Oxford

  9,758

  9,006

  7,755

  7,704

  7,739

  South Western

  11,310

  11,445

  11,233

  10,541

  10,454

  West Midlands

  21,549

  21,994

  21,958

  22,225

  21,338

  Mersey

  9,383

  10,120

  10,149

  9,965

  9,850

  North Western

  14,737

  16,083

  15,918

  16,043

  16,736

  Total

  196,958

  197,472

  199,100

  197,127

  196,075

  Premises in regular use for family planning sessions

  Northern

  131

  131

  132

  136

  129

  Yorkshire

  146

  150

  152

  154

  148

  Trent

  139

  136

  138

  134

  135

  East Anglia

  59

  58

  58

  57

  56

  North West Thames

  160

  165

  168

  170

  158

  North East Thames

  145

  155

  159

  163

  167

  South East Thames

  133

  124

  138

  141

  136

  South West Thames

  130

  119

  120

  122

  122

  Wessex

  87

  87

  86

  87

  89

  Oxford

  68

  65

  59

  54

  53

  South Western

  114

  114

  114

  111

  112

  West Midlands

  168

  171

  164

  167

  170

  Mersey

  106

  103

  105

  104

  105

  North Western

  158

  161

  162

  168

  166

  Total

  1,744

  1,739

  1,755

  1,768

  1,746

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps his Department is taking to ensure adequate financial provision for the continuation of family planning clinics in view of the important role family planning clinics play in prevention of AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  The allocation of funds for local family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities, subject to the defined consultation procedures if substantial variations in services are proposed. Authorities will be aware of the implications of AIDS for family planning services, for example through the provisional guidance prepared by the Family Planning Association and the National Association of Family Planning Doctors.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many and which regional health authorities in England include young people's birth control advisory services as a priority in their strategic plans.

  Mr. Newton
  The hon. Member may wish to approach regional health authorities direct about their policies towards these services as their strategic plans do not deal with such matters in detail.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the degree of choice to be offered in National Health Service family planning provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Our policy is that people should be free to choose their source of family planning advice. The
  156
  detailed arrangements for the provision of health authority family planning services is a matter for individual health authorities. DHSS guidance on family planning services recommends that a choice of sources of advice and provisions should be available and that people should be free to change from one source to another and to attend clinics outside the geographic area of the health authority if they wish.

  Women wishing to receive contraceptive services from a general medical practitioner may apply either to their own doctor or to another who has indicated willingness to accept patients other than their own for this service. The doctor has discretion to accept or decline individual applications.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (1) National Health Services family planning clinics and (2) general practitioner health centres are designated as training centres for family planning in England.

  Mr. Newton
  The following information is recorded by the Joint Committee on Contraception, which is concerned with family planning training for doctors and on which the DHSS is one of six bodies represented. The figures refer to the number of approved premises for family planning training and United Kingdom totals only are available.

  Number

  Community and Hospital Clinics

  1,035

  GP premises

  30

  157
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is Government policy on funding for young people's birth control advisory services, including Brook Advisory Centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Health authorities are advised to consider the need for separate facilities for young people but the allocation of funds for such arrangements is a matter for them. We are, also, currently funding three family planning and pregnancy counselling projects for young people under 25 years which it is hoped will identify models of good practice which can be disseminated to the National Health Service. The Department has given grants towards the headquarters administrative costs of Brook advisory centres since 1978 and an application for a renewed grant is currently being considered.

  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what role National Health Service family planning clinics are playing in the Government's campaign against AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We recognise the relevance and importance of family planning work to the AIDS issue. Family planning staff are well placed to offer advice and guidance to the public, and condoms are available free of charge on prescription in clinics.

  We have provided a grant of £7,960 to the Family Planning Association towards the cost of pilot training courses in live health authorities on the AIDS aspects of the work of family planning staff.

  The "Handbook of Contraceptive Practice", prepared by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of General Practitioners and issued to family planning doctors and other family planning professionals, is currently being revised to take account of AIDS.

  Conception Rates
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the rates of conception (i) inside and (ii) outside marriage, by age of women, in each regional health authority in England in 1985.

  Mr. Newton
  The table gives the information for England and Wales as a whole. Details of the definitions and methods of estimation used are given in OPCS monitor FMI 87/2. The rates for each regional health authority of England are not available because the annual estimate of the populations by marital status are made only for England and Wales as a whole.

  Conception rates to women resident in England and Wales: 1985

  Age of mother at conception

  Conceptions outside marriage per 1,000 unmarried women

  Conceptions inside marriage per 1,000 married women

  All ages

  60·0

  85·0

  Under 20

  53·8

  326·7

  20–24

  73·7

  21·40

  25–29

  82·8

  161·8

  30–34

  63·6

  81·1

  35–39

  33·0

  25·1

  40 and over

  9·2

  5·8

  Note: Rates for women of all ages, under 20 and 40 and over are based upon the populations of unmarried and married women aged 15–14, 15–19 and 40–44 respectively.
  158
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the rates of conception and resultant maternity or abortion by age of women in 1985 in England.

  Mr. Newton
  The table gives the information. Details of the definitions and methods of estimation used are given in OPCS monitor FMI 87/2.

  Conception rates per 1,000 women resident in England: 1985

  Age of mother at conception

  All conceptions

  Leading to maternities

  Leading to abortions under 1967 Act

  All ages

  74·1

  60·7

  13·4

  Under 20

  61·4

  40·4

  21·0

  20–24

  121·2

  100·4

  20·8

  25–29

  136·2

  121·4

  14·8

  30–34

  77·8

  67·3

  10·5

  35–39

  26·6

  19·7

  6·9

  40 and over

  6·4

  3·4

  3·0

  Rates for women of all ages, under 20 and 40 and over are based on the population of women aged 15–44, 15–19 and 40–44 respectively.

  Male Sterilisations
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many male sterilisations have been carried out in (1) National Health Service family planning clinics, and (2) National Health Service hospitals in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested, for the last five available years is as follows:

  Numbers of ligation or vasectomy of vas deferens performed in NHS non-psychiatric hospitals and clinics, England, 1981–1985

  Year

  Number in NHS hospitals

  Number in NHS family planning clinics

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  1985

  45·8

  13·3

  1984

  42·1

  14·7

  1983

  39·9

  13·8

  19821

  28·1

  12·7

  1981

  35·7

  13·8

  1 Surgical activity in the NHS was depressed in 1982 due to industrial action.

  Female Sterilisations
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many female sterilisations were performed in each regional health authority in England in each of the last five years; how many and what percentage were day cases; how many and what percentage were in conjunction with abortion; how many and what percentage were on medical grounds; and how many and what percentage were carried out (1) on the National Health Service (2) privately, and (3) as agency agreement.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret I cannot give the hon. Member all the information she seeks. The information so far as it is available centrally, is given in the tables.
  159

  The Number of Female Sterilisations Performed in NHS Hospitals, by Region of Residence, England, 1981

  Interval sterilisations

  Sterilisations associated with abortions1 2

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterilisations associated with delivery

  Total sterilisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Northern

  4,020

  350

  n/a

  —

  —

  412

  6

  Yorks

  3,750

  1,770

  n/a

  —

  —

  471

  64

  Trent

  6,680

  390

  n/a

  —

  —

  849

  39

  East Anglian

  2,860

  310

  n/a

  —

  —

  521

  20

  North West Thames

  3,720

  140

  n/a

  —

  —

  465

  66

  North East Thames

  3,250

  60

  n/a

  —

  —

  595

  204

  South East Thames

  3,880

  540

  n/a

  —

  —

  569

  374

  South West Thames

  3,330

  180

  n/a

  —

  —

  234

  8

  Wessex

  3,370

  630

  n/a

  —

  —

  501

  4

  Oxford

  3,380

  390

  n/a

  —

  —

  388

  20

  South Western

  3,970

  260

  n/a

  —

  —

  402

  55

  West Midlands

  5,030

  580

  n/a

  —

  —

  522

  299

  Mersey

  1,660

  110

  n/a

  —

  —

  243

  103

  North Western

  5,150

  70

  n/a

  —

  —

  716

  64

  England3

  54,040

  5,770

  n/a

  —

  —

  6,888

  1,306

  1 Analysed by region of treatment.

  2 Includes day cases, if any.

  3 England totals may not equal sum of regions due to roundings.

  n/a Not available.

  The number of female sterilisations performed in NHS hospitals, by region of residence, England, 19824

  Interval Sterilisations

  Sterilisations associated with abortions1 2

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterilisations associated with delivery

  Total sterilisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Northern

  2,210

  370

  787

  3,367

  10·9

  417

  3

  Yorks

  2,490

  470

  723

  3,683

  12·8

  444

  39

  Trent

  5,200

  100

  1,445

  6,745

  1·5

  817

  33

  East Anglian

  2,050

  260

  334

  2,644

  9·8

  435

  22

  North West Thames

  3,350

  40

  518

  3,908

  1·0

  412

  52

  North East Thames

  3,190

  130

  744

  4,064

  3·2

  588

  240

  South East Thames

  3,450

  520

  690

  4,660

  11·2

  479

  326

  South West Thames

  2,650

  150

  453

  3,253

  4·6

  226

  24

  Wessex

  2,960

  460

  388

  3,808

  12·1

  415

  68

  Oxford

  2,880

  190

  604

  3,674

  5·2

  334

  20

  South Western

  3,050

  50

  572

  3,672

  1·4

  390

  54

  West Midlands

  4,170

  350

  938

  5,458

  6·4

  494

  347

  Mersey

  1,720

  60

  636

  2,416

  2·5

  181

  88

  North Western

  4,210

  50

  1,370

  5,630

  0·9

  661

  64

  England3 5

  43,620

  3,210

  10,303

  57,133

  5·6

  6,293

  1,380

  1 Analysed by region of treatment.

  2 Include day cases, if any.

  3 England totals may not equal sum of regions due to roundings.

  4 Surgical activity in NHS depressed in 1982 due to industrial action.

  5 Includes 40 cases region not known.

  The number of female sterlisations performed in National Health Service hospitals, by region of residence, England, 1983

  Interval Sterilisations

  Sterilisations associated with abortions1 2

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterilisations associated with delivery

  Total sterilisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Northern

  3,980

  520

  1,062

  5,562

  9·3

  379

  2

  Yorkshire

  3,750

  1,210

  788

  5,748

  21·1

  413

  107

  Trent

  7,010

  290

  1,205

  8,505

  3·4

  695

  79

  East Anglian

  3,070

  510

  307

  3,887

  13·1

  449

  11

  North West Thames

  3,330

  60

  613

  4,003

  1·5

  357

  23

  160 161

  Interval sterilisations

  Sterlisations associated with abortions1 2

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterlisations associated with delivery

  Total sterlisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  North East Thames

  3,140

  100

  723

  3,963

  2·5

  443

  258

  South East Thames

  3,230

  480

  493

  4,203

  11·4

  412

  292

  South West Thames

  3,010

  230

  471

  3,711

  6·2

  204

  44

  Wessex

  2,750

  170

  372

  3,292

  5·2

  362

  64

  Oxford

  2,640

  460

  493

  3,593

  12·8

  354

  17

  South Western

  3,620

  310

  559

  4,489

  6·9

  392

  36

  West Midlands

  4,650

  420

  1,029

  6,099

  6·9

  419

  368

  Mersey

  2,400

  40

  591

  3,031

  1·3

  199

  90

  North Western

  5,110

  110

  1,336

  6,556

  1·7

  600

  52

  England3

  51,670

  4,910

  10,042

  66,622

  7·4

  5,678

  1,443

  1 Analysed by region of treatment.

  2 Includes day cases, if any.

  3 England totals may not equal sum of regions due to roundings.

  The number of female sterilisations performed in NHS hospitals, by region of residence, England, 1984

  Interval sterilisations

  Sterlisations associated with abortions1 2

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterlisations associated with delivery

  Total sterlisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Northern

  3,060

  330

  739

  4,129

  7·9

  407

  2

  Yorks

  3,540

  840

  1,032

  5,412

  15·5

  373

  177

  Trent

  6,500

  380

  1,347

  8,227

  4·6

  663

  94

  East Anglian

  3,140

  830

  272

  4,242

  19·5

  462

  14

  North West Thames

  3,920

  140

  522

  4,582

  3·1

  376

  32

  North East Thames

  3,580

  90

  750

  4,420

  2·0

  459

  315

  South East Thames

  4,070

  550

  489

  5,109

  10·8

  359

  281

  South West Thames

  2,750

  310

  380

  3,440

  9·0

  223

  82

  Wessex

  3,810

  480

  206

  4,496

  10·7

  353

  92

  Oxford

  2,460

  420

  543

  3,423

  12·3

  339

  20

  South Western

  4,120

  290

  380

  4,790

  6·1

  345

  20

  West Midlands

  4,380

  270

  1,195

  5,845

  4·6

  393

  433

  Mersey

  1,730

  90

  717

  2,537

  3·5

  128

  93

  North Western

  5,280

  150

  1,293

  6,723

  2·2

  599

  94

  England3 4

  52,340

  5,170

  9,865

  67,375

  7·7

  5,479

  1,749

  1 Analysed by region of treatment.

  2 Includes day cases, if any.

  3 England totals may not equal sum of regions due to roundings.

  4 Includes estimated 20 cases, region not known.

  The number of female sterilisations performed in National Health Service hospitals, by region of residence, England, 1985

  Interval sterilisations

  Sterlisations associated with abortions 2 3

  In-patients

  Day cases

  Sterlisations associated with delivery1

  Total sterlisations other than associated with abortion

  Day cases as a percentage of column D

  Performed in NHS hospitals

  Performed in private hospitals

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Northern

  3,200

  n.a.

  849

  —

  —

  301

  6

  Yorkshire

  3,550

  n.a.

  1,121

  —

  —

  400

  154

  Trent

  6,360

  n.a.

  1,372

  —

  —

  608

  69

  East Anglian

  2,700

  n.a.

  196

  —

  —

  420

  15

  North West Thames

  3,810

  n.a.

  653

  —

  —

  315

  32

  North East Thames

  2,880

  n.a.

  719

  —

  —

  490

  291

  South East Thames

  3,300

  n.a.

  555

  —

  —

  279

  322

  South West Thames

  2,770

  n.a.

  435

  —

  —

  190

  75

  Wessex

  3,350

  n.a.

  327

  —

  —

  295

  99

  Oxford

  3,110

  n.a.

  468

  —

  —

  319

  13

  South Western

  3,210

  n.a.

  392

  —

  —

  350

  13

  West Midlands

  4,960

  n.a.

  1,110

  —

  —

  360

  443

  Mersey

  1,790

  n.a.

  664

  —

  —

  145

  93

  North Western

  4,910

  n.a.

  1,110

  —

  —

  552

  69

  England4 5

  49,910

  n.a.

  9,972

  —

  —

  5,024

  1,694

  162 163
  1 Provisional.

  2 Analysed by region of treatment.

  3 Includes day cases, if any.

  4 England totals may not equal sum of regions due to roundings.

  5 Includes estimated 10 cases region not known.

  n.a.—Not available.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has had talks with his European counterparts aimed at common medical research arrangements to enhance the prospects of scientific advance in treatment to improve the use of funds for such purposes.

  Mrs. Currie
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently attended the Council of Ministers of the European Communities in Brussels on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  The Council adopted a new framework programme of research and development which makes provision for a programme of medical and health research to include work on AIDS, cancer and preventive medicine. That programme is expected to be approved in the near future.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of retirement pensioners who will need special care by the National Health Service between 1988 and 1991.

  Mrs. Currie
  It is not clear what the hon. Member means by the term "special care". If he writes to me with details, I will do my best to respond to him.

  NHS (Staff)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is reviewing the economic and financial conditions necessary to keep National Health Service medical staff from emigrating to countries where their pay is higher.

  Mr. Newton
  Doctors' pay is reviewed annually by the Doctors and Dentists Review Body which takes account of all relevant factors in bringing forward its advice. We are not aware of significant emigration of medical staff, but the evidence is being reviewed by an advisory committee on medical manpower planning.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital wards had to close for lack of doctors or nurses in 1986; and what were the comparable figures in 1978.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that the information requested is not held centrally. The day-to-day management of hospitals is the responsibility of local health authorities.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many private hospitals have been built and put into operation in the London region for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many hospitals for the practice of private medicine have been built and put into operation since 1979.

  Mrs. Currie
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, I understand from the 164
  Independent Hospitals Association that since 1979 there has been a net increase of 50 private hospitals in England, nine of which are within the area covered by the four Thames regional health authorities. Information for Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  NHS (Private Patients)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures for the accumulated debt owed to the National Health Service for services given to private patients since 1979: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not collected centrally. However, from the summarised accounts of health authorities in England for 1986–87 (as yet unaudited) we estimate that some £11 million was outstanding at 31 March 1987, the vast majority of which health authorities expect to recover. Departmental guidance, issued in March 1986, should ensure that proper statutory charges are levied and collected.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service hospitals have been built and put into operation since 1975.

  Mrs. Currie
  Hospitals are normally built in stages, comprising a series of individual building schemes. Information held centrally shows that in England since 1975, 308 National Health Service hospital building schemes, each costing over £1 million, have been completed and brought into operation. National Health Service building elsewhere in the United Kingdom is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  NHS Establishments (Hygiene)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of deficient hygiene were found for each year since 1985 in National Health Service establishments now served by private contractors.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on any occasional lapses from the National Health Service's normally high standards of hygiene, whether by contractors or by directly employed staff, is not collected centrally.

  Hospitals (Cleaning and Maintenance)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to him on the minimum of personnel needed in each hospital for cleansing and maintenance operations.
  165
  Mr. Newton
  The staffing levels required for such services are a matter for those responsible for providing them.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what (a) medical and (b) other specialised advice is given to private contractors for the cleaning and maintenance of National Health Service installations and equipment.

  Mr. Newton
  This is a matter for health authorities who, before awarding contracts, have to satisfy themselves about contractors' competence to meet the detailed specifications set out in tender documents. These specifications include details of any special procedures, requirements or policies which apply to the service under contract.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what penalties are imposed on private contractors in charge of the cleaning and maintenance of National Health Service installations who have been found to provide deficient services.

  Mr. Newton
  This is a matter for health authorities. Normally when putting such services out to tender an authority will include in the contract documents detailed specifications of the service required of the contractor and the action to be taken should the contractor fail to meet the specifications.

  NHS (Doctors)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new full-time doctors the National Health Service has employed for each year since 1979 to work in hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  Information requested is not available centrally in the precise form requested. However, the table sets out numbers of doctors in the pre-registration house officer grade in England. Doctors in this grade are mainly United Kingdom graduates in the course of their first year in medical practice. It is estimated that in addition some 1,200 overseas qualified doctors enter the training grades each year, mainly at senior houe officer and registrar level, for a limited period of postgraduate training.

  Numbers of Pre-registration House Officers1 in post at 30 September: England

  Year

  Number

  1979

  2,610

  1980

  2,564

  1981

  2,716

  1982

  2,710

  1983

  2,826

  1984

  2,773

  1985

  2,838

  1986

  2,813

  1 Includes a small number of overseas-graduated doctors with full or limited registration with the General Medical Council.

  Tracheo-oesophageal Fistula
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial support his Department will be giving to aid research into the medical condition known as TOF (tracheo-oesophageal fistula) which affects one in 3,000 babies in the United Kingdom.
  166
  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has no plans at present to provide financial support for research into trachea-oesophageal fistula but is always willing to consider well-founded applications for research grants.

  The main Government-funded body carrying out biomedical research in this country however is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Low Income Households
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the 1985 family expenditure survey data on the number of low income households.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 7 July, at column 115.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the names, addresses, directors or licensees of each private abortion clinic or agency operating in Britain, together with the number of beds available in each.

  Mr. Newton
  Places in England approved under the Abortion Act, the proprietors and numbers of approved beds are shown in the table. Details about directors, like any other commercial information, is supplied to the Department on an "in confidence" basis.

  Information about premises in Scotland and Wales is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Approved Places

  Approved beds

  Name of Proprietor

  Acland Nuffield Hospital, Banbury Road, Oxford

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Alexandra Hospital, Mill Lane, Cheadle, Cheshire

  1

  AMI Health Services Limited

  Alexandra Hospital, Impton Lane, Waldcrslade, Kent

  6

  NME Hospitals (UK) Limited

  Avenue Clinic, 14 New Church Road, Hove, Sussex

  6

  Avenue Clinic Limited

  Bath Clinic Claverton Down Road, Combe Down

  5

  Bath Private Hospital Limited

  Beechwood Private Clinic, Norton Church Road, Norton, Sheffield

  20

  Beechwood Private Clinic Limited

  Belvedere Nursing Home, Belvedere Road, Scarborough

  3

  Belvedere Nursing Home Limited

  Blackdown Nursing Home, Old Milverton Lane, Blackdown, Leamington Spa

  33

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Blackheath Hospital 40–42 Lee Terrace, London SE3

  2

  AMI Health ' Services Limited

  167

  Approved Places

  Approved beds

  Name of Proprietor

  Bromhead Nursing Home, Nettleham Road, Lincoln

  1

  Bromhead Nursing Home Trust Limited

  BUPA Hospital, Heathbourne Road, Bushey, Watford, Herts

  4

  BUPA Hospitals Limited

  BUPA Murrayfield Hospital, Holmwood Drive, Thingwall, Wirral, Merseyside

  4

  BUPA Hospitals Limited

  BUPA Hospital, Old Watton Road, Colney, Norwich

  4

  BUPA Hospitals Limited

  Calthorpe Nursing Home 4 Arthur Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham

  24

  Calthorpe Nursing Home Limited

  Chalybeate Hospital, Chalybeate Close, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hants

  5

  HCA UK Limited

  Chatsworth Clinic, 76–78 Park Road, New Barnet, Herts. EN4 9QT

  1

  Chatsworth Clinic Ltd.

  Chaucer Hospital, Nackington Road, Canterbury, Kent

  2

  AMI Health Services Limited

  Chesterfield Nuffield Hospital, Clifton Hill, Bristol

  5

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Clare Park Clinic, Clare Park, Crondall Lane, Crondall, Farnham Surrey

  2

  HCA UK Limited

  Cleveland Nuffield Hospital, Junction Road, Norton, Stockton-on-Tees

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Cotswold Nuffield Hospital, Talbot Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Danum Lodge Nursing Home, 123 Thorne Road, Doncaster

  24

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Dean Park Nursing Home, 23–25 Ophir Road, Bournemouth, Dorset

  26

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Duchy Hospital, Penventinnie Lane, Treliske, Truro

  5

  The Cornwall Independent Hospitals Trust Limited

  168

  Approved Places

  Approved beds

  Name of Proprietor

  Duchy House Nuffield Hospital, Queen's Road, Harrogate

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Evelyn Hospital, Trumpington Road, Cambridge

  4

  Committee of Management of Hospital

  Exeter Nuffield Hospital, Wonford Road, Exeter

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Fairfield Nursing Home, 68 Russell Road, Buckhurst Hill, Essex

  29

  Fairfield Nursing Home Limited

  Falloden Private Nursing Home, 4 Allerton Park, Leeds

  21

  Leeds Private Hospital Limited

  Fitzwilliam Hospital, Milton Way, South Bretton, Peterborough

  4

  Fitzwilliam Hospital Limited

  Foscote Private Hospital, Foscote Road, Banbury

  2

  Foscote Court (Banbury) Trust Limited

  Fulford Grange Hospital, Micklefield Lane, Rawdon, Leeds

  2

  Fulford Grange Hospital Limited

  Garden Hospital, 46–50 Sunny Gardens Road, Hendon, London NW4

  3

  Health Care Services PLC

  Hampshire Clinic, Basing Road, Basingstoke, Hants

  2

  Basingstoke Private Hospital Limited

  Highfield Private Hospital, Manchester Road, Rochdale

  3

  Highfield Private Nursing Home Limited and Rochdale Surgical Unit Limited

  HRH Princess Christian's Hospital, 12 Clarence Road, Windsor, Berks

  5

  Trustees of Hospital

  Hull Nuffield Hospital, Westbourne Avenue, Hull

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Ipswich Surgical Nursing Home, 57 Fonnereau Road, Ipswich, Suffolk

  2

  Ipswich Surgical Home Association (Guarantee) Limited

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst, West Sussex

  5

  Trustees of Hospital

  Leicester Nuffield Hospital, Scraptoft Lane, Leicester

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Leigham Private Clinic, 76 Leigham Court Road, London SW16

  29

  Liegham Private Clinic Limited (Railford Limited)

  169

  Approved Places

  Approved beds

  Name of Proprietor

  Marie Stopes Nursing Home, 10 Manstone Road, London NW2

  13

  Population Services Family Planning Programmes Limited

  Merseyside Nursing Home, 32 Parkfield Road, Liverpool

  30

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Newcastle Nuffield Hospital, Osborne Avenue, Jesmond, Newscastle-upon-Tyne

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  New Hall Hospital, Bodenham, Salisbury, Wiltshire

  4

  Salisbury Independent Hospital and Medical Services Limited

  New Victoria Hospital, 184 Coombe Lane West, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey

  2

  Trustees of Hospital

  Park Hospital, Sherwood Lodge Drive, Arnold, Nottingham

  6

  Nottingham Private Consultants Limited

  Parkfield Private Hospital, Parkfield Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire

  4

  Mr. A. R. Mead

  Parkview Clinic, 87 Mattock Lane, Ealing, London W5

  30

  Shawline Medical Developments Limited

  Plymouth Nuffied Hospital, Derriford Road, Derriford, Plymouth

  2

  Nuffied Nursing Homes Trust

  The Portland Hospital for Women and Children, 209 Great Portland Street, London WI

  4

  London Childrens and Womens Hospital Limited

  Raleigh Nursing Home, 1A Raleigh Gardens, Brixton Hill, London SW2

  19

  Population Services Family Planning Programmes Limited

  Robert Nursing Home, 162 Station Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham

  14

  Robert Nursing Home Limited

  Rosslyn Nursing Home, 15–17 Rosslyn Road, East Twickenham, Middlesex

  37

  Pregnancy Advisory Services Limited

  Royal Masonic Hospital, Ravenscourt Park, London W6 OTN

  4

  Committee of Hospital

  Salop Nuffield Hospital, Longden Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9DP

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Sarum Road Private Nursing Home, Sarum Road, Winchester, Hampshire

  4

  Bedrose Properties Limited

  Somerset Nuffield Hospital, Staplegrove Elm, Taunton, Somerset

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  170

  Approved Places

  Approved beds

  Name of Proprietor

  South Bank Hospital, 139 Bath Road, Worcester

  2

  HCA UK Limited

  South Manchester Private Clinic, 136 Chester Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport

  21

  Dalreagh Private Nursing Home Limited

  St. Wilfrid's Nursing Home, 51 Bawtry Road, Bessacarr, Doncaster

  2

  D. S. Nursing Homes (Doncaster) Limited

  Thames Valley Nuffield Hospital, Wexham Street, Slough

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Victoria House Nursing Home, Victoria Street, Rochester, Kent

  6

  Dr. H. Elman JP

  Wellesley Hospital, Eastern Avenue, Southend-on-Sea

  2

  Wellesley Hospital Limited

  Wessex Nuffield Hospital, Winchester Road, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh, Hants.

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  West Sussex Clinic, 48 Shelley Road, Worthing

  2

  G. M. Health Care Limited

  Winterbourne Hospital, Herringston Road, Dorchester, Dorset

  4

  Winterbourne Hospital Limited

  Wistons Nursing Home, 138 Dyke Road, Brighton

  51

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  Working Nuffield Hospital, Shores Road, Woking

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Tiust

  Wye Valley Nuffield Hospital, Venns Lane, Hereford

  2

  Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust

  Yorkshire Clinic, Bradford Road, Bingley, West Yorkshire

  2

  West Yorkshire Independent Hospital PLC

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now update the evidence which his Department supplied to the 1976 Select Committee on Abortion concerning the financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions and the clinics in which such abortions are performed by approaching the agencies concerned and asking that the normal commercial confidentiality be waived in this instance.

  Mr. Newton
  We see no need to do so. My hon. Friend is free to approach the agencies for this information if he wishes.
  171
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what specific steps have been taken by his Department to monitor the occurrence and treatment of post-abortion stress disorder;

  (2) whether he will introduce a system of notification so that his Department is kept informed of the incidence of post-abortion stress disorder and other abortion-related conditions.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has funded since 1976 a long-term study by Manchester research unit of the Royal College of General Practitioners on attitudes to pregnancy. This unit is preparing a paper about psychiatric morbidity experienced by women having abortion treatment.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to alter the conditions governing the financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions and the clinics in which such abortions are performed.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of abortions performed in the last year for which figures are available upon non-resident women in England and Wales were performed in non-National Health Service facilities or in pay beds in National Health Service hospitals.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986, 24,589 (99·7 per cent.) of abortions to non-resident women were performed in non-National Health Service facilities. Figures are not available centrally to show how many of the remaining 78 (0·3 per cent.) abortions which were performed in NHS hospitals were done in private beds.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information his Department requires licensed abortion clinics to keep on the after-care which is provided for non-resident women who have abortions in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  Information is not recorded on the aftercare provided to non-resident patients, but they are provided with an information sheet and a discharge letter to their own doctor, usually in their own language.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of abortions performed at 18 weeks or more gestation in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available were performed because the child was likely to be born handicapped.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1986 there were 8,276 notifications of abortions which took place with a gestation period of 18 weeks or more. Of these, 648 contained a mention of ground 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act, which states,"there is a substantial risk that if the child was born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".

  This represents a percentage of all abortion notifications of 7·8.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) why his Department does not make available information concerning the numbers of abortions which are performed in pay beds in National Health Service facilities;
  172
  (2) what would be the cost of collecting and publishing information on a regular basis concerning the numbers of abortions which are performed in pay beds in National Health Service facilities;

  (3) whether his Department will arrange for the collection and publication of information concerning the number of abortions which are performed in pay beds in National Health Service facilities if the cost of such an exercise is met by the private sector.

  Mr. Newton
  A special analysis of a 10 per cent. sample of in-patient records has shown that in 1985 there were an estimated 560 abortions, including spontaneous abortions, in private beds in NHS hospitals in England. This compares with the total of 65,254 legal abortions done in NHS hospitals in that year. We see no reason to collect and publish this information on a regular basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the abortion counselling agencies of which his Department is aware currently have any financial link with abortion clinics.

  Mr. Newton
  Eight.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases of which he is aware any individual is both a director or trustee of a company or charity providing abortion counselling and also of a clinic providing abortions.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department's records show that there are 32 such individuals.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the administrative condition that financial arrangements between abortion agencies and clinics are reported is fulfilled.

  Mr. Newton
  All nursing homes are required to give an assurance to the Secretary of State that they will notify any changes to existing financial arrangements between the nursing home and any medical practitioner, pregnancy advice bureau or referral agency and to report, as soon as it is made, any new arrangement. Pregnancy advice bureaux also are required to identify financial links with other businesses. These requirements are drawn to the attention of administrators of premises when the first visit of inspection is made. Checks continue to be made on subsequent visits and company searches are carried out as necessary. Proprietors and administrators are well aware that failure to comply with an assurance could constitute grounds for withdrawal of registration of bureaux or approval of nursing homes.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in how many cases an individual doctor who performs abortions at any clinic is also a director or trustee of a company or charity which provides an abortion counselling service.

  Mr. Newton
  We know of no such cases.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will confirm that the present administrative condition relating to financial links in the abortion industry permits a doctor working on a salaried or retainer basis at an abortion agency to perform abortions upon the women whom he has referred for abortions elsewhere.
  173
  Mr. Newton
  It is not a requirement that a doctor working on a salaried or retainer basis at a bureau should not also perform abortions on these patients in a nursing home/clinic. It is, however, a requirement that doctors employed on a per capita basis should not also operate upon the women whom they see at the bureau.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions were done privately on National Health Services premises at 18 weeks and over in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the statutory grounds on which the abortions were performed.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that the information requested is not available: the abortion notification form does not seek information about the private or other status of patients in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions performed at 18 weeks or more gestation in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available were performed (a) in emergency to save the life of the mother and (b) in cases of rape.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on abortion notifications mentioning ground 5 of the Abortion Act 1967 (which allows abortions in emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman) by details of gestation weeks for individual years cannot be released for reasons of confidentiality. However, in the five years 1982–86 there were 26 such notifications, of which 13 were performed at 18 weeks or more gestation.

  Prior to 1987 it is not possible to identify reliably all those notifications of abortion which mention rape. Arrangements are being made in order to provide this for current and future abortions.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions his Department has had with the health services of other countries in the European Economic Community in order to ensure that after-care is available for non-resident women who travel to the United Kingdom for abortions.

  Mr. Newton
  None. The after care of non-resident abortion patients is a matter for the doctors and medical institutions involved in any individual case.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average cost of a National Health Service abortion performed at (a) under 12 weeks, (b) under 18 weeks, (c) 18 weeks or more and (d) 20 weeks or more.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimated revenue cost of an abortion in National Health Service hospitals is £170. Information on the average cost at different gestations is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information his Department collects concerning the fees charged by abortion agencies.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department approves the level of fees in the case of pregnancy advice bureaux and nursing homes with more than six beds approved for use for abortion cases, or with more than 25 per cent. of its total beds so approved.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the source of the evidence available
  174
  to him to support the claim that a high percentage of pregnant women who go to pregnancy advice bureaux do proceed to have an abortion.

  Mr. Newton
  Pregnancy advice bureaux are required to maintain registers which show, inter alia, whether or not women are referred for abortion. These registers are inspected by the Department's investigative officers in the course of their inspection visits.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of abortions performed in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available on pregnancies of 18 weeks or more was performed upon single women.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table.

  Single women as a percentage of all abortions,18–28 weeks gestation, residents and non-residents, England and Wales 1986

  Number

  All abortions

  8,276

  Single women

  6,123

  Percentage

  74

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of abortions performed in England and Wales in the latest year for which figures are available on pregnancies of 18 weeks or more was performed on women with (a) no previous children, (b) one previous child, (c) two previous children, (d) three previous children, (e) four previous children, (f) five previous children and (g) six previous children.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested; the available information for 1986 is shown in the table.

  Number of notifications of abortions at 18 weeks or more gestation by parity, England and Wales, 1986

  Number of previous children

  Number of notifications of abortions

  Percentage

  All abortions

  8,276

  100

  0

  5,770

  69·7

  1

  1,181

  14·3

  2

  696

  8·4

  3

  352

  4·2

  4

  157

  1·9

  5 and over

  70

  0·8

  Unknown

  50

  0·6

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by each English district health authority area the number of abortions undertaken in each year since 1967.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on abortions by district health authority of termination is not released for reasons of confidentiality. Tables showing data by district health authority of usual residence for 1983–86 are available in the OPCS annual Series AB, "Abortion Statistics"; for 1975–82, the same series gives data for health districts; for 1974, data are available only for regional health authorities. The years 1968–73 are covered for hospital regions in the Registrar General's "Supplement on Abortion" for the annual "Statistical Review of England and Wales". These publications are available in the Library.

  NHS (Pay)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision have the Government made for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority to implement pay rises whilst remaining within its expenditure budget.

  Mrs. Currie
  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has received a cash allocation this year of £79·6 million, 8·6 per cent. more than in 1986–87. The allocation includes a special addition to help health authorities maintain and develop services following this year's review body awards. Health authorities must take the necessary steps to balance the cost of service developments against other cost pressures.

  Benefits
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate (a) the net cost to each local authority of housing benefit payment made to tenants in private sector housing 1986–87, (b) the amount paid by each authority in respect of individual rents which were in excess of 180 per cent. of the average registered rent in the respective DHSS area in 1986–87 and (c) the anticipated net cost to each authority of making such payments following the introduction of housing benefit subsidy arrangements set out in circular LHB(87)5.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information sought in relation to the current housing benefit scheme is not held centrally. It is not possible to predict the net cost to individual local authorities of the proposed subsidy arrangements under the reformed scheme since that cost will be strongly influenced by such factors as the extent to which each authority succeeds in limiting benefit on unreasonably high private sector rents.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the backlog of outstanding claims to social security benefits in the local offices of his Department in Greenock and Port Glasgow in August.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows the number of outstanding claims to social security benefits in Greenock and Port Glasgow in August.

  Greenock

  Port Glasgow

  ILO

  ILO

  Sickness/Invalidity benefit

  33

  35

  Maternity allowance

  4

  6

  Retirement pension

  159

  42

  Severe disablement allowance

  22

  12

  Supplementary benefit

  35

  55

  TOTAL

  253

  150

  Source: Social security management information statistics for four week period ending 25 August 1987.

  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will review the subsidy granted to Leeds city council for housing benefit 1988 preparation costs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the criteria used by his Department to settle the allocations for local authorities in respect of the preparation costs involved in the 1988 housing benefit charges.

  Mr. Portillo
  Following discussions with the local authority associations, it was decided that the £25 million 176
  grant which is being made available to local authorities to support their costs in preparing for the reformed housing benefit scheme should be allocated to authorities on the basis of a formula which took account of their recent administration costs and caseloads. The formula was adjusted so that the relationship between authorities' estimates and their allocations would be broadly comparable for each size of authority. The share of £231,289 due to be paid to Leeds city council has been calculated on this basis. We have no plans to review the amount of the grant payable to the council.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the United Kingdom are currently in receipt of housing benefit; what plans he has to ensure that all entitled to such benefit will receive it; what assistance he is willing to give to the take-up campaigns organised by voluntary organisations and local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures are readily available only on a Great Britain basis. Our latest estimate is that in autumn 1986, some 7·2 million households were in receipt of housing benefit. Responsibility for administering housing benefit rests with local authorities, who have a statutory duty to publicise the scheme. It would be for the authority concerned to decide how to respond to a locally organised take-up campaign.

  At a national level, housing benefit is one of the benefits which will feature in the new series of leaflets being redesigned as part of our communications strategy. It will also feature in the advertising campaign we are planning to explain the social security reforms.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the total number of claimants in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole who have been refused benefit following a restart interview.

  Mr. Lee
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any refusal of benefit subsequent to a restart interview follows not from the interview itself but from the decision of an independent adjudication officer operating under longstanding legal rules adopted by successive Governments.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to uprate child benefit in line with inflation at the forthcoming up-rating.

  Mr. Scott
  An announcement about benefit rates will be made shortly.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received a letter from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith dated 27 April regarding the withdrawal of the estate heating allowance for a number of constituents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that I have no record of having received this letter.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total amount of supplementary benefit paid to claimants in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland in the financial year 1979–80 to 1985–86.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information is not available in respect of Greenock and Port Glasgow or Strathclyde region. Information in respect of Scotland is as follows:
  177

  Financial year

  Amount £ million

  1979–80

  218

  1980–81

  286

  1981–82

  464

  1982–83

  599

  1983–84

  570

  1984–85

  639

  1985–86

  743

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount paid to social security claimants in (a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Greenock and Port Glasgow for additional requirements in the years 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that information to answer part(a) of the question is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. No information is available to answer parts (b) and (c)

  Single Payments
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many appeals against decisions relating to single payments for those people in supplementary benefit are currently being dealt with by the local offices serving (a) Scotland and (b) Strathclyde region; and what were the comparable numbers for June 1985 and June 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is regretted that not all of the information requested is readily available. For Scotland as a whole the latest figures for single payment appeals at local offices awaiting submission to social security appeal tribunals are as follows:

  Number

  June 1985

  1,047

  June 1986

  2,081

  December 1986

  6,176

  Statistics about types of decision appealed against are not collected below regional level. Information specific to Strathclyde area could therefore only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff are currently employed in the local offices of his Department in (a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Strathclyde region and (d) Greenock and Port Glasgow: and how many staff in each of these are planned for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Portillo
  The latest comprehensive information on the number of staff in post in local offices of the Department relates to 1 October 1987 and is as follows:

  Number

  (a) England and Wales

  62,471·5

  (b) Scotland

  8,270·5

  (c) Strathclyde Region

  4,622·0

  (d) Greenock ILO

  176·5

  Port Glasgow ILO

  81·5

  The number of staff planned for the end of 1987–88 takes account of workload reductions and is as follows:
  178

  Number

  (a) England and Wales

  60,884

  (b) Scotland

  8,188

  (c) Strathclyde Region

  4,572

  (d) Greenock ILO

  174

  Port Glasgow ILO

  80

  The number of staff planned for 1988–89 for each of these areas is not yet available

  Notes: Figures exclude cleaners

  ILO = Integrated Local Office

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received calling for more assistance in dealing with the work load in his Department's local offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A provisional claim for more staff in local offices has been lodged by the trade unions and this is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff have been employed in local offices of his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of full-time staff equivalents in the Department's local offices on the 1 April each year was as follows:

  Number

  1979

  65,207

  1980

  64,036·5

  1981

  66,847

  1982

  64,159

  1983

  63,650

  1984

  60,861

  1985

  63,136

  1986

  62,911

  1987

  64,888·5

  Included in these totals are part-time staff but it is not possible to give a breakdown as information on part-time staff in local offices is not held centrally.

  Mobility Allowance and Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if Her Majesty's Government plan to amalgamate the mobility allowance tribunals and social security appeal tribunals, as recommended in the Oglesby report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under the present system, non-medical questions arising on mobility allowance claims are decided, on appeal, by social security appeal tribunals; medical questions are decided by medical boards and thereafter, if necessary, by medical appeal tribunals. We have no plans at present to revise this aspect of medical adjudication.

  Deaf People (Communication)
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the level of funding for the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department awarded the council a grant of £40,000 in each of the past three years.
  179
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the proposed withdrawal of funding by his Department to the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People.

  Mr. Scott
  This Department is by far the largest single contributor to the funds of this voluntary organisation and funding is not being withdrawn. On the contrary, we are making a grant of £40,000 in 1987–88, the same amount as in the previous three years. The council has explained its current financial difficulties. We have extended further help by bringing forward the first three quarterly instalments of our grant. We are also actively discussing with the council and others with an interest longer term financial arrangements for supporting the council's work.

  Eye Treatment (North-West)
  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many consultant ophthalmologists there are in (a) England, (b) North West regional health authority and (c) central Manchester district; what is the current waiting list at the Manchester royal eye hospital; what is the current shortfall in (a) medical and (b) nursing staff at that hospital; and if he will now take steps to provide further medical staff to the hospital to seek to reduce this waiting list.

  Mr. Newton
  The information held centrally is as follows:

  (i) Consultant ophthalmologists, whole time equivalents, at 30 September 1986

  England

  North Western Regional Health Authority

  Central Manchester Health Authority

  382

  30

  6

  (ii) Inpatient waiting list for Manchester Royal Eye Hospital at 31 December 1986: 1,917. Information is not held centrally on the waiting time of these patients or whether they are urgent or non-urgent cases.

  Information is not held centrally on medical or nursing manpower at the Manchester royal eye hospital. Numbers and appointments are matters for the authorities locally.

  The hon. Member may wish to seek further information from the chairman of the central Manchester health authority, which is responsible for managing the Manchester royal eye hospital.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Jack
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to change the arrangements for the exceptionally cold weather payments scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  180
  Mr. Scott
  The current arrangements, based on clear criteria, can be expected to give extra help more often and more quickly to those most at risk from the cold than any previous systems since the scheme was first put on a regulated basis in 1980. Last winter, we estimate that over 950,000 people received help, more than twice as many as in any previous year. The total cost of benefit paid was £10·2 million.

  For this winter we plan to make it easier for claimants to get help during repeat periods of exceptionally cold weather. We intend to provide that, where a successful claim is made in respect of one period of exceptionally cold weather, that claim will remain valid in respect of subsequent periods of cold weather during the winter. At the same time, we will be correcting a number of technical errors in the description of areas covered by particular weather stations. This will not change the links between local offices and weather stations themselves. Regulations to make these changes will be laid before the House shortly.

  These arrangements will apply for the coming winter. For subsequent winters, the Social Security Bill proposes an amendment to the Social Security Act 1986 to provide for help to be given towards the cost of heating in cold weather when single payments have been abolished, and replaced by loans and grants from the social fund. This help with heating will be regulated, and paid as of right in a similar way to the arrangements for maternity and funeral payments within the social fund. This amendment provides reassurance that help will continue to be available following the social security reforms next April.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) why the hospital waiting list figures for England for March issued by his Department included no figures for Hampstead district health authority;

  (2) what estimates of hospital waiting lists for Hampstead district health authority for March were included in the national, regional and sub-regional figures;

  (3) what were the actual hospital waiting list figures for Hampstead district health authority for March.

  Mr. Newton
  Computing problems prevented the Hampstead district health authority from producing hospital waiting list figures for March 1987.

  The table shows the estimates which were included in the national and regional summaries. These were produced by assuming that the Hampstead waiting lists experienced the same percentage changes since September 1986 as the rest of North East Thames region.
  181

  Estimated number of Patients on in-patient waiting list at 31 March 1987 District health authority: Hampstead

  Numbers

  Percentage

  Urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases

  Non-urgent cases on list more than one year as percentage of total

  Specialty

  Total

  All

  On list more than one month

  All

  On list more than one year

  General medicine

  27

  11

  6

  16

  2

  7·4

  Paediatrics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Thoracic medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Dermatology

  10

  3

  2

  7

  0

  0·0

  Neurology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Cardiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Rehabilitation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Genito-urinary medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Rheumatology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Geriatrics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Units for younger disabled

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  General surgery

  388

  36

  18

  352

  86

  22·2

  Ear, nose and throat

  400

  25

  16

  375

  104

  26·0

  Traumatic and orthopaedic

  798

  104

  80

  694

  276

  34·6

  Ophthalmology

  294

  19

  12

  275

  37

  12·6

  Radiotherapy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Urology

  104

  19

  10

  85

  17

  16·3

  Plastic surgery

  265

  30

  22

  235

  136

  51·3

  Thoracic surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Oral surgery

  180

  9

  5

  171

  89

  49·4

  Orthodontics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Neurosurgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Gynaecology

  192

  22

  14

  170

  18

  9·4

  Psychiatry children

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Mental handicap

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Mental illness

  42

  4

  3

  38

  14

  33·3

  Adolescent psychiatry units

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  G.P. other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  G.P. dental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Accident and emergency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Anaesthetics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Audiological medicine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Cardiac surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Child assessment unit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Clin. ph'macology and therapeutics

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Endocrinology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Forensic psychiatry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Gastroenterology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Haematology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Medical oncology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Nephrology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Paediatric surgery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Pathology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Psychogeriatric

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Radiology

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Restorative dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Spinal injuries unit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Paediatric dentistry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0·0

  Surgical specialties—sub-total

  2,621

  264

  177

  2,357

  763

  29·1

  All specialties—total

  2,700

  282

  188

  2,418

  779

  28·9

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will publish in the Official Report a table based on table 3.15.1 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm 56-II) with all the figures converted to 1986–76 prices;
  182
  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table based on table 3.15 of the public expenditure White Paper (Cm 56-II) with all figures converted to 1986–87 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The figures have been converted to 1986–87 prices using the GDP deflators (a different price deflator from the one used for uprating benefits) for assumed future inflation underlying the figures in Cm 56.
  183

  Table 1 Social Security expenditure

  £ million (1986–87 prices)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans1

  plans1

  CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS (ie THOSE PAID FROM THE NATIONAL INSURANCE FUND)

  Pension benefits

  Retirement pension

  —basic element

  15,415

  16,072

  16,570

  16,592

  16,871

  17,538

  17,710

  17,500

  17,700

  —earnings-related component

  24

  48

  68

  95

  145

  201

  263

  300

  400

  Christmas bonus

  129

  121

  117

  115

  108

  107

  104

  100

  100

  Widows' benefits, etc

  —basic element

  875

  852

  861

  830

  787

  797

  767

  800

  700

  —earnings-related component

  5

  11

  17

  28

  34

  42

  50

  100

  100

  Unemployment, incapacity and other benefits

  Unemployment benefit

  2,167

  1,785

  1,705

  1,723

  1,637

  1,704

  1,513

  1,500

  1,500

  Sickness benefit

  866

  659

  302

  305

  284

  157

  126

  100

  100

  Invalidity benefit

  —basic element

  1,711

  1,832

  2,055

  2,237

  2,308

  2,446

  2,537

  2,600

  2,700

  —earnings related component

  33

  63

  76

  109

  131

  166

  197

  200

  300

  Death grant

  22

  20

  19

  19

  19

  18

  —

  —

  —

  Industrial injuries benefit

  Industrial disablement benefit

  401

  408

  420

  416

  420

  425

  390

  400

  400

  Industrial death benefit

  60

  61

  61

  60

  61

  62

  61

  100

  100

  Other industrial injuries benefits

  6

  6

  6

  5

  4

  4

  3

  —

  —

  Family benefits

  Maternity allowance

  201

  181

  161

  176

  169

  167

  66

  —

  —

  Guardian's allowance and child's special allowance

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Total contributory benefit expenditure

  21,915

  22,121

  22,441

  22,713

  22,978

  23,836

  23,789

  23,700

  24,100

  NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS (ie THOSE MET FROM VOTED EXPENDITURE OR PAID BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.

  Pension benefits

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  50

  48

  47

  43

  42

  38

  37

  —

  —

  Christmas bonus

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  —

  —

  War pension

  610

  600

  597

  594

  598

  572

  573

  600

  500

  Disability benefits

  Attendance allowance

  420

  479

  564

  629

  707

  776

  806

  800

  900

  Invalid care allowance

  8

  10

  11

  12

  13

  191

  90

  100

  100

  Non-contributory invalidity pension/severe disablement allowance

  166

  183

  207

  253

  254

  260

  259

  300

  300

  Mobility allowance

  220

  281

  346

  389

  435

  507

  538

  600

  600

  Supplementary benefit2/income support/social fund

  Supplementary pension

  1,805

  1,722

  808

  972

  1,107

  1,123

  1,178

  —

  —

  Supplementary allowance

  —long-term rate

  1,047

  1,487

  1,485

  1,692

  1,762

  1,861

  1,923

  8,000

  8,000

  —short-term rate

  3,310

  4,240

  4,074

  4,402

  4,868

  5,038

  4,920

  —

  —

  Family benefits

  Child benefit

  4,293

  4,355

  4,541

  4,669

  4,602

  4,515

  4,457

  4,300

  4,300

  One parent benefit

  97

  108

  122

  131

  138

  148

  150

  200

  200

  Family income supplement/family credit

  84

  112

  140

  138

  134

  148

  133

  400

  400

  Maternity grant

  20

  19

  19

  20

  18

  17

  —

  —

  —

  Housing benefit3

  Rent rebate

  633

  1,105

  2,254

  2,343

  2,363

  2,434

  2,413

  2,300

  2,400

  Rent allowance

  83

  88

  611

  750

  857

  1,020

  978

  900

  1,000

  Total non-contributory benefit expenditure

  12,854

  14,843

  15,830

  17,041

  17,906

  18,655

  18,459

  18,500

  18,500

  184 185

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans1

  plans1

  Total benefit expenditure

  34,770

  36,966

  38,271

  39,753

  40,884

  42,491

  42,249

  42,200

  42,600

  ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES

  Administration and miscellaneous services4

  National Insurance Fund administration (collection of contributions and payment of contributory benefits)

  933

  872

  790

  882

  821

  755

  820

  790

  790

  Non-contributory benefit administration (payment of non-contributory benefits) 5

  634

  689

  853

  848

  901

  1,060

  1,088

  1,050

  1,040

  Housing benefit

  Local authority etc. administration6

  53

  82

  120

  152

  152

  168

  183

  160

  160

  Total administration

  1,621

  1,643

  1,763

  1,882

  1,875

  1,983

  2,092

  2,000

  1,990

  Total Department of Health and Social Security—Social Security

  36,390

  38,609

  40,034

  41,655

  42,758

  44,478

  44,340

  44,200

  44,600

  1 Benefit expenditure rounded to nearest 100 (no entry where under 50) and administration costs to nearest 10.

  2 Includes assistance with costs of rents and rates in 1981–82 and 1982–83.

  3 Local authority rent rebates and allowances 1981–82 to November 1982. From November 1982 for some and from April 1983 for all cases includes assistance with rent formerly met through supplementary benefit. Rate rebates are excluded from the table as they are not public expenditure.

  4 All costs of administration, including payments by the National Insurance Fund or by the DHSS to the various Government Departments involved.

  5 From April 1983 Departments have repaid PSA for accommodation and certain other services, under the Property Repayment Service

  6 Additional costs to local authorities arising in implementing the new housing benefit scheme from 1 April 1988 are included in 1987–88.

  Table 2 Analysis of Social Security expenditure by broad economic category

  £ million (1986–87 prices)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  plans

  plans1

  plans1

  Departmental running costs

  1,164

  1,177

  1,282

  1,388

  1,307

  1,352

  1,409

  1,300

  1,400

  Running costs receipts2

  -775

  -726

  -729

  -796

  -731

  -660

  -726

  -700

  -700

  Other public sector pay

  32

  50

  72

  91

  92

  101

  95

  100

  100

  Transfers to the personal sector

  34,440

  36,636

  37,912

  39,378

  40,499

  42,081

  41,821

  41,700

  42,100

  Purchases of assets, goods and services3

  1,211

  1,153

  1,169

  1,210

  1,215

  1,193

  1,312

  1,300

  1,300

  Transfers to the corporate sector

  -5

  -5

  -27

  -4

  -3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Payments overseas

  325

  325

  354

  370

  381

  408

  429

  500

  500

  Total expenditure

  36,390

  38,609

  40,034

  41,636

  42,758

  44,474

  44,340

  44,200

  44,600

  Contribution to total public sector capital spending

  19

  11

  26

  24

  56

  71

  83

  100

  100

  1 Rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Includes recovery from the National Insurance Fund of expenditure on administering the Fund included under Departmental running costs above.

  3 Includes repayment by the National Insurance Fund for expenditure incurred by government departments in administering the Fund. The expenditure is included in the departmental running costs, etc, of DHSS (in this table) and of other relevant departments.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to see that all three of the necessary tests for glaucoma are made a mandatory part of the National Health Service test for spectacles for those in the over 40 years risk group; and if he will make a statement.
  186
  Mrs. Currie
  The use of ophthalmoscopy which can detect glaucoma is already part of the routine NHS sight test. It is open to practitioners to carry out any other tests they judge to be appropriate in individual cases.

  AIDS
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which voluntary organisations have received grants as part of the Government's AIDS prevention and education campaign; and how much each organisation has received.
  187
  Mr. Newton
  The following voluntary organisations have received grants since the start of the Government's AIDS public education campaign. The figures include planned spending in the current financial year. Grants paid to some organisations such as the Terence Higgins Trust cover both support for those infected with HIV or suffering AIDS and for preventative and educational work.

  £

  AIDS Ahead (organisation representing the hearing impaired)

  75,000

  The Royal National Institute for the Blind

  13,000

  The Terrence Higgins Trust

  453,000

  Healthline

  298,023

  Standing Committee on Drug Abuse

  43,000

  London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard

  13,735

  Family Planning Association

  20,860

  The Brook Advisory Service

  33,800

  British Association for Counselling

  5,600

  Accept services United Kingdom

  102,690

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  17,000

  London Lighthouse

  600,000

  St. Catherine's Hospice

  60,000

  Mildmay Mission

  200,000

  £1,339,829 has been paid to three organisations, Broadcasting Support Services, Network (Scotland) Ltd and AIDS Helpline (Northern Ireland), which jointly provide free 24-hour telephone advice and information services as part of the national AIDS helpline.

  The Scottish Home and Health Department has provided a grant of £46,400 in 1987/88 to the Scottish AIDS Monitor, a voluntary body which provides information, counselling and support for AIDS sufferers in Scotland, people infected with the AIDS virus, those who fear they are at risk of infection and to families and friends of AIDS patients.

  The National AIDS Trust has been set up with Government support totalling £800,000 to provide funding to voluntary bodies and co-ordinate their activities.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate, for England and Wales, for the most recent month for which figures are available, and in addition on a cumulative basis (a) the number of persons who have died from AIDS-related causes, (b) the number of persons diagnosed as suffering from AIDS and (c) the number of persons estimated to be HIV-positive.

  Mr. Newton
  Figures for the reported cases of AIDS are published monthly. Figures for the number of people reported to be HIV antibody positive are published quartely. Copies of the figures are available in the Library.

  There are a number of unknowns involved in the estimation of the number of people who are HIV antibody positive. These include the number who may be susceptible to infection, the proportion of those infected who go on to develop AIDS, the varying incubation period and the proportion of those infected who present themselves for testing. At the moment, therefore, it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the number of people who are HIV antibody positive.

  National Health Service Operations
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many doctors, nurses and other medical staff
  188
  were involved in operations performed on National Health Service patients during 1986; and what were the numbers performing similar operations in 1978.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is not available centrally. We are unable to identify staff actually involved in operations. The table includes figures for medical staff in surgical specialties and anaesthetics and operating department assistants for the relevant years. Information on nursing staff in operating theatres is not available prior to 1981.

  National Health Service professional staff working operating theatres: staff in post at 30 September—England

  Whole time equivalents1

  1978

  1981

  1986

  Medical and dental2

  Surgical

  7,500

  8,100

  8,200

  Anaesthetic

  3,300

  3,600

  3,900

  Nursing

  Theatre3

  n.a.

  8,000

  11,400

  Professional and technical

  Operating Department Assistants4

  2,300

  2,700

  2,700

  Notes:

  Source: DHSS annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole time equivalents.

  2 Excludes part-time Medical Officers and Hospital Practitioners.

  3 Includes all nursing staff working in "Theatre" area of work.

  4 On I April 1984 Operating Department Assistants were reclassified from Ancillary to Professional and Technical Staff Group. Figures include trainees.

  n.a.—Not available.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many major operations were performed on National Health Service patients during 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  No information is yet available centrally on the number of operations performed on National Health Service patients during 1986. The National Health Service in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were hospitalised for more than seven days in National Health Service hospitals during 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  There were 1·95 million discharges following an in-patient spell of more than seven days during 1985, the latest year for which information is available centrally.

  Laboratories (Medical Tests)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many laboratories there are doing National Health Service medical tests, and of what classification

  (2) how many National Health Service medical and test laboratories there are.

  Mrs. Currie
  There were 385 NHS laboratories in England in 1986. The number of such laboratories undertaking work in each main specialty in 1985 (the latest year for which information was available) was:
  189

  Number

  Chemical Pathology

  300

  Cytogenetics

  27

  Haematology

  341

  Histopathology

  267

  Immunology

  50

  Microbiology

  299

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how the existing laboratories for the testing of cervical cancer are distributed;

  (2) how many laboratories there are which test for cervical cancer.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information for England is given in the table. Figures for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Number of laboratories

  England

  196

  Northern RHA

  11

  Hartlepool

  11

  North Tees

  1

  South Tees

  1

  East Cumbria

  1

  West Cumbria

  1

  Darlington

  1

  North West Durham

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  Newcastle

  2

  Sunderland

  1

  Yorkshire RHA

  16

  East Yorkshire

  1

  Grimsby

  1

  Scunthorpe

  1

  Northallerton

  1

  York

  1

  Scarborough

  1

  Harrogate

  1

  Bradford

  1

  Calderdale

  1

  Huddersfield

  1

  Dewsbury

  1

  Leeds Western

  2

  Leeds Eastern

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  Pontefract

  1

  Trent RHA

  13

  North Derbyshire

  1

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  South Lincolnshire

  1

  Bassetlaw

  1

  Central Nottinghamshire

  1

  Nottingham

  1

  Barnsley

  1

  Doncaster

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  Sheffield

  2

  East Anglian RHA

  7

  Cambridge

  1

  Peterborough

  1

  West Suffolk

  1

  East Suffolk

  1

  190

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Number of laboratories

  Norwich

  1

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  1

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  1

  North West Thames RHA

  18

  North Bedfordshire

  1

  South Bedfordshire

  1

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  East Hertfordshire

  1

  South West Hertfordshire

  1

  Barnet

  2

  Harrow

  1

  Hillingdon

  2

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  2

  Ealing

  1

  Brent

  1

  Paddington and North Kensington

  1

  Riverside

  3

  North East Thames RHA

  18

  Basildon and Thurrock

  1

  Mid Essex

  1

  North East Essex

  1

  West Essex

  1

  Southend

  1

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  2

  Bloomsbury

  3

  Islington

  1

  City and Hackney

  1

  Newham

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Enfield

  1

  Haringey

  1

  Redbridge

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  South East Thames RHA

  16

  Brighton

  1

  Eastbourne

  1

  Hastings

  1

  South East Kent

  1

  Canterbury and Thanet

  1

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1

  Med way

  1

  Tunbridge Wells

  1

  Bexley

  1

  Greenwich

  2

  Bromley

  1

  West Lambeth

  1

  Camberwell

  1

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  2

  South West Thames RHA

  12

  North West Surrey

  1

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  1

  South West Surrey

  1

  Mid Surrey

  1

  East Surrey

  1

  Chichester

  1

  Mid Downs

  1

  Worthing

  1

  Kingston and Esher

  1

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Merton and Sutton

  1

  Wessex RHA

  10

  East Dorset

  2

  West Dorset

  1

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1

  Winchester

  1

  Salisbury

  1

  Swindon

  1

  Bath

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  191

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Number of laboratories

  Oxford RHA

  7

  East Berkshire

  1

  West Berkshire

  1

  Aylesbury Vale

  1

  Wycombe

  1

  Kettering

  1

  Northampton

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1

  South Western RHA

  10

  Bristol and Weston

  1

  Frenchay

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1

  Exeter

  1

  Plymouth

  1

  Torbay

  1

  Cheltenham

  1

  Gloucester

  1

  Somerset

  2

  West Midlands RHA

  21

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1

  Herefordshire

  1

  Worcester and District

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  Mid Staffordshire

  1

  North Staffordshire

  1

  South East Staffordshire

  1

  Rugby

  1

  North Warwickshire

  1

  South Warwickshire

  1

  Central Birmingham

  1

  North Birmingham

  1

  South Birmingham

  1

  West Birmingham

  1

  Coventry

  1

  Dudley

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Solihull

  1

  Walsall

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Mersey RHA

  15

  Chester

  1

  Crewe

  1

  Halton

  1

  Macclesfield

  1

  Warrington

  1

  Liverpool

  3

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2

  Southport and Formby

  1

  South Sefton

  2

  Wirral

  2

  North Western RHA

  18

  Lancaster

  1

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  1

  Preston

  1

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  1

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  1

  West Lancashire

  1

  Bolton

  1

  Bury

  1

  North Manchester

  1

  Central Manchester

  1

  South Manchester

  2

  Oldham

  1

  Rochdale

  1

  Salford

  1

  Stockport

  1

  Tameside and Glossop

  1

  192

  Region and District Health Authorities

  Number of laboratories

  Wigan

  1

  All Special health authorities

  4

  The Royal Marsden Hospital

  1

  Hammersmith and Queen Charlotte's

  3

  NHS (Staff Accommodation)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present arrangements and co-ordination for solving the lack of accommodation for nurses and other medical staff in the south of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  In conjunction with health authorities we are currently reviewing the availability of National Health Service residential accommodation and the measures which might be taken to assist NHS staff to enter the private housing market.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of applications for invalid care allowance from married or cohabiting women has been rejected.

  Mr. Scott
  At 16 October 1986, 131,300 claims to invalid care allowance had been received from married or cohabiting women. The independent adjudicating authorities have decided that the conditions of entitlement to an allowance are not satisfied in about 14 per cent. (18,000) of these claims.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications from married and cohabiting women for invalid care allowance had been received by 31 August.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 August about 126,000 claims for invalid care allowance had been received from married or cohabiting women.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of applications for invalid care allowance is rejected.

  Mr. Scott
  About 18·6 per cent.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the limit on earnings for recipients of invalid care allowance without abating that allowance has risen since November 1982; and by what percentage (a) the retail prices index and (b) the average earnings index has increased over the same period.

  Mr. Scott
  The weekly earnings limit governing entitlement to invalid care allowance has not changed since it was doubled from £6 to £12 in November 1982. In the period November 1982 to August 1987, the latest date for which information is available, the retail price index rose by 24 per cent.; in the same period the average earnings of manual and non-manual workers in all industries and services rose by 42 per cent.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for invalid care allowance from

  193
  married and cohabiting women have been abated due to receipt of (a) supplementary benefit, (b) other benefits and allowances and (c) retirement pension.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the requested information is not available. Since June 1986, when the allowance was extended to married and cohabiting women, payments to some 568 women have been reduced on account of the payment of other social security benefits, including supplementary benefit and retirement pension.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for invalid care allowance from married or cohabiting women have been outstanding for (a) six months or less, (b) six to 12 months and (c) over 12 months; and how many of each category relate to women in Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the requested information is not available, but at 16 October some 131,300 invalid care allowance claims had been received from married and cohabiting women of which about 17,900 were awaiting decision. The average time taken to process an invalid care allowance claim is currently about 11·5 weeks.

  Mr. John
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many outstanding claims for invalid care allowance there are.

  Mr. Scott
  At 16 October, some 26,300 invalid care allowance claims were awaiting a decision.

  Dundee East Local Office

  Dundee West Local Office

  Year

  Supplementary benefit recipients

  Supplementary Pension recipients

  Supplementary benefit recipients

  Supplementary Pension recipients

  1979

  8,638

  3,579

  7,690

  3,969

  1980

  8,880

  3,421

  7,694

  3,859

  1981

  9,761

  3,409

  8,365

  3,791

  1982

  10,909

  3,192

  9,870

  3,805

  1983

  11,309

  2,766

  10,425

  3,600

  1984

  12,664

  3,013

  10,937

  3,676

  1985

  13,245

  2,697

  11,365

  3,538

  1986

  13,019

  2,683

  11,204

  3,278

  1987

  12,626

  2,825

  11,330

  3,325

  The count of cases in action includes some cases where benefit has ceased to be paid but other action is proceeding.

  No information is available concerning the number of people claiming family income supplement.

  Housing Benefit Recipients in the City of Dundee

  Number

  1979–80

  112,850

  1980–81

  113,425

  1981–82

  115,516

  1982–83

  116,347

  1983–84

  22,890

  1984–85

  23,999

  1985–86

  23,353

  1986–87

  223,170

  1987–88

  223,164

  Pensions
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of elderly people in receipt of supplementary pension in (a) the Dundee, East constituency and (b) the Dundee district authority area, for the latest available date and for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many people in (i) the Dundee, East constituency and (ii) the Dundee district authority area are currently in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit, (b) family income supplement and (c) housing benefit, and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what is the number of elderly people in receipt of supplementary pension in the Dundee, West constituency for the latest available date and or each year since 1979;

  (2) how many people in the Dundee, West constituency are currently in receipt of (a) supplementary benefit. (b) family income supplement and (c) housing benefit; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The constituencies of Dundee, East and Dundee, West and Dundee district authority are served by Dundee, East and Dundee, West local offices but the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The table sets out the information requested for these offices on 28 July 1987 and for each year since 1979.

  1 Housing Benefit was introduced from April 1983; before this date rebates were awarded.

  2 Provisional.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures showing the number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary pensions in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde region and (c) Scotland in May of each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows the number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary pension in Greenock local office, Port Glasgow local office, Strathclyde region and Scotland in May of each year since 1979.
  195

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Greenock office

  3,237

  3,168

  3,238

  3,300

  3,690

  3,781

  3,674

  3,484

  3,726

  Port Glasgow office

  1,177

  1,146

  1,157

  1,205

  1,246

  1,318

  1,288

  1,267

  1,260

  Strathclyde region

  83,870

  81,923

  81,555

  78,241

  76,355

  81,879

  89,131

  79,263

  81,613

  Scotland

  147,693

  144,362

  142,868

  144,346

  139,786

  147,834

  148,129

  145,215

  148,734

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. These include some cases where benefit has ceased to be paid but other action is still proceeding.

  Cancer Patients, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will ask for a report for Leeds Eastern health authority on the resources available for treating children cancer patients at St. James hospital, Leeds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will meet the chairman of Yorkshire regional health authority and Leeds Eastern health authority to discuss the funding of the treatment of children cancer patients at St. James hospital, Leeds; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether he has any plans to make more resources available to Leeds Eastern health authority in order to assist the care of children cancer patients at St. James hospital, Leeds.

  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will establish an inquiry into the adequacy of resources for the treatment of children cancer patients in St. James hospital, Leeds.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the allocation of resources to Yorkshire district health authorities, including Leeds Eastern, rests with Yorkshire regional health authority. Matters of this kind are for the respective authorities to resolve. The funding of paediatric oncology services must, however, be considered in the context of other services in Yorkshire. I understand that the Yorkshire regional health authority is currently reviewing funding arrangements for services which cover more than one district. This will include paediatric oncology.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current average length of time which it takes him to reply to letters from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Moore
  On average 37 calendar days elapse between receipt of a letter from a right hon. or hon. Member and a reply being sent by a DHSS Minister.

  Attendance Allowance Board (Guidance)
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the guidance issued by the Attendance Allowance Board will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The Attendance Allowance Board's guidelines to its delegated medical practitioners will be 196
  published as a priced document after Parliament has completed consideration of the current Social Security Bill, which contains a clause to amend one of the qualifying medical criteria for entitlement to an allowance.

  Mobility Allowance (Appeals)
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will end as soon as possible the practice of his Department's medical appeals tribunals, covering mobility allowance appeals, of obliging claimants to walk up and down outside in public thoroughfares when assessing their walking ability.

  Mr. Portillo
  The administration of medical appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, His Honour Judge Byrt, QC.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give the average waiting time from date of appeal to hearing under the social security appeal tribunal system in each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will give the number of appeals under the social security appeal tribunal system in each year since 1979;

  (3) if he will give the number of appeals upheld in part or total under the social security appeal tribunal system in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  Prior to April 1984 appeals statistics which measured the time between lodgement and hearing were kept only for supplementary benefit appeal tribunals. There are no comparable figures available for the pre-1984 national insurance local tribunals. The table gives details of the number of appeals to supplementary benefit appeal tribunals lodged and heard in the years 1979 to 1983 and for the first quarter of 1984.

  From April 1984 supplementary benefit appeal tribunals and national insurance local tribunals were unified into social security appeal tribunals. At the same time, responsibility for the administration of social security appeal tribunals was transferred to the independent office of the president of social security appeal tribunals. The table gives figures for appeals to social security appeal tribunals for all social security benefits for the period from April 1984 to the quarter ending 31 March 1987 (the latest quarter for which figures are available).
  197

  Supplementary Benefits—Great Britain—1979–84

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Year

  Number of appeals lodged

  Number of appeals heard

  Number of successful appeals

  Percentage successful appeals (column 3 as percentage of column 2)

  Average length of lime from lodgement to hearing in weeks

  1979

  94,178

  50,639

  10,840

  21·4

  4·4

  1980

  94,481

  49,355

  10,914

  22·1

  4·4

  1981

  108,570

  49,864

  8,862

  17·8

  6·8

  1982

  129,909

  56,084

  10,195

  18·2

  8·5

  1983

  142,779

  60,567

  11,828

  19·5

  9·4

  19841

  37,721

  16,871

  3,314

  19·6

  10·5

  1 First quarter only. New statistical system introduced 1 April 1984

  Great Britain—Social Security appeal tribunals—all benefits—1984–87

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Year

  Number of appeals lodged3

  Number of appeals heard

  Number of successful appeals

  Percentage successful appeals (column 3 as percentage of column 2)

  Average length of lime from lodgemen I to hearing in weeks

  19841

  192,576

  74,542

  15,745

  211

  13·5

  1985

  293,728

  114,550

  26,689

  23·3

  14·8

  1986

  355,731

  125,838

  31,675

  25·2

  160

  19872

  191,250

  37,685

  9,132

  24·2

  18·2

  1 9 month period April·December 1984.

  2 First 3 months January·March 1987.

  3 As well as new appeals lodged this figure includes appeals lodged but not decided and carried over from the previous year.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the sums spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation and paid through supplementary benefit in the Thanet district and Canterbury city council areas in each of the years 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not collected by individual local offices and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Gynaecology
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list by each district health authority the number of gynaecological operations waiting to be performed.

  Mrs. Currie
  A table showing the number of patients on the March 1987 in-patient waiting list for the gynaecology specialty has been placed in the Library. The information available centrally on in-patient waiting lists is categorised according to the specialty of the consultant not the intended method of treatment.

  Income Support Regulations
  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to reply to the letter from
  198
  Mr. Richard Horton of the West Midlands Welfare Rights Agency, sent to him on 27 July, regarding the draft Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that we have no trace of this correspondence. However, I understand that a copy of the draft Income Support (Transitional) Regulations 1987 was sent to Mr. Horton in July. If the hon. Member would forward a copy of Mr. Horton's letter, I shall ensure that he is sent a reply.

  Heating Allowances
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider giving extra heating allowances to senior citizens and disabled people with restricted mobility over the coming winter period in recognition of Scotland's colder climate.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) today.

  Extra weekly help with heating costs is currently available to supplementary benefit householders aged 65 or over and to disabled people through the system of supplementary benefit heating additions. The two main rates are £2·20 and £5·55 a week. Like previous Governments, we consider that it would not be right to deviate from the principle of national benefit levels

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Lord Cudlipp Lord Cudlipp—made the solemn Affirmation.

European Monetary System: Membership
Lord Ezra: 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 pegging of sterling to the deutschemark and other European Community currencies since February, there are any remaining obstacles to Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government continue to keep the position under review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that at this time of enormous perturbation in the stock exchanges of the world every effort should be made to keep currencies stable? Would not Great Britain finally joining the exchange rate mechanism help to do that in the important European area? Is it not therefore surprising, sterling having openly cohabited with the exchange rate mechanism for the past nine months, that the Government should still be reluctant to legitimise the arrangement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, the movements in the stock exchanges of the world are indeed very dramatic. I am very doubtful whether they would be any the less so if we were a member of the exchange rate mechanism. As I have said, the matter is kept under review. The Government have always said that there are arguments both in favour and against joining the mechanism. We will only join when satisfied that the balance clearly favours doing so.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be better to allow market forces upon which the Government place such store to blow themselves out a little before further consideration is given to this matter? Would not the noble Lord agree that the intellectual abilities of the Government would be far more advantageously employed in seeking to minimise the damage to the British economy that will undoubtedly ensue from the events of the last week?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the powers we have to think about things that have happened to the British economy in the last week will be exercised. As I said earlier, I am
308
extremely doubtful whether joining the exchange rate mechanism would have made any difference to what has happened in the last week.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, after the events of the last week, are the Government in a position to assure us that they have any currency to peg?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain I appreciate the intention of the noble Lord's remark. So far as sterling is concerned, it has been extremely firm in the last week and is even firmer today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell the House in outline at least what are the powers which the Government may be taking? Sterling is not so much being pegged at the moment; it is completely and absolutely bogged down. Could he please tell the House what are the powers that the Government might take, which he mentioned a moment ago?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I said that we must no doubt think, using our powers of thought, as to what might be done about the equity markets. I said that in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As regards joining the exchange rate mechanism, I do not see what that has got to do with it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the acknowledged serious state of the economy as a result of the mess in which the financial markets, including the London market, have got themselves, is the noble Lord now telling the House that the Government are considering the matter carefully with a view to making a Statement which would give the country some assurance that the Government have any sort of policy at all?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly not. We are straying rather a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. What the noble Lord has implied that I said I certainly did not say.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that he has not yet answered the second part of my noble friend's Question? It was clearly directed to the relationship between sterling and the deutschemark with which as he said we have been co-habiting for a number of months? When are the Government going to legalise that arrangement?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the time is ripe.

Civil Defence and Local Authorities
2.41 p.m.
Lord Renton: 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 about the responses of local

309
authorities to the questions addressed to them for answer by 1st October regarding their plans for fulfilling their responsibilities under the Civil Defence Act 1948.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, responses have been received from 47 out of the 54 county level local authorities who were requested to provide information about work programmes and plans. Of the remaining seven, three have promised replies very soon, and we are in touch with the others. The material provided is now being assessed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him whether the replies so far received reveal that all local authorities with statutory responsibility for protecting their people would be able and willing to do so in the event of there being another serious nuclear accident causing fall-out? Do they appear to be relying merely upon calling their areas nuclear-free zones and doing nothing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that it is a little early to give a comprehensive answer to my noble friend's Question because of the short time that we have had these reports. Analysis of them would give an indication of how local authorities are progressing with their civil defence planning and provide background for consideration of the budgets for 1988 and 1989. When further information is to hand I shall be delighted to let my noble friend know what it is.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. The noble Earl will recall that three and a half years ago the Government appointed an individual to co-ordinate the activities of the local authorities. The House was told at that time that he was very busy at his job and that in due course a report on the progress he was making would be given to the House and to the country. We never hear about his activity and it is very relevant to the Question which the noble Lord has just asked. Can the Minister tell us whether that individual is still in post, precisely what he is doing and what staff he has to help him?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I think the world "co-ordinate" is the wrong word to use in this respect? The person to whom the noble Lord refers is the civil defence adviser, who is very much in post. The position involves assisting in the consideration and development of arrangements for monitoring progress by local authorities, advising on the performances of local authorities, advising on the valuation of local authority applications for civil defence grant, participating in working groups, advising committees, undertaking various representational duties and serving on the editorial board of Civil Protection.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, he is a far more important man than I thought he was. His
310
functions are very relevant to the Question. When does this adviser make a report? Has his report been published so that Parliament can discuss it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the civil defence adviser will play a key role in assessing the reports before us. I confirm to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we shall be presenting a further report in due course.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend add to what he has said? My noble friend referred to the functions of this adviser which, as I understand it, include monitoring progress so far made. Is it the case that in the course of monitoring he will know how many so-called nuclear-free zones there are and how many of those are in local authorities which are doing nothing about civil defence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will be pleased to hear that the great majority of authorities have responded, and include a number of those under the style of nuclear-free zones. It appears that all local authorities are now co-operating but the full degree to which they are doing so will not be known until we have assessed the report.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that there is a great difference between refusing to provide a non-existent defence against nuclear war and making adequate provision for the possibility of a nuclear accident? Does the noble Earl recognise that many who believe that the former is a waste of time nonetheless wish to make adequate provision for the latter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord is at last beginning to realise the importance of civil defence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that your Lordships have already waited several years for a full report on the performance of local authorities on these responsibilities, can my noble friend tell the House roughly when we may expect the full Statement to which he referred in his Answer to my Question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think it is fair to say to the House that a clearer picture on the preparedness of local authorities should emerge between next April and next October. I hope that I shall then be able to answer my noble friend more clearly.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend give us a guarantee now that when he discovers which local authorities are recalcitrant he will use his reserve powers to bring them to book?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, from my information I do not think that it is necessary for the Government to use their reserve powers at the moment. There are good reasons why we have not received the seven reports but they will be coming to us shortly.

British Summer Time
2.47 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: 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 why, in view of the reminders given in this House that the review of British summer time would shortly take place as the issue is to be renegotiated with our EC partners, a circular seeking the views of interested parties was not issued until mid-August, with a six-week deadline for consultation and reply.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the current arrangements for summer time apply until the end of 1988. The consultations referred to will enable the Government to survey a wide spectrum of interests to detect any significant changes in attitude since the last inquiry in 1984. The consultations have been undertaken at an appropriately early stage and most of those consulted have replied. The Government continue to welcome representations on this subject from any quarter. No new proposals have as yet been received from the European Commission.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, but it hardly answers the point concerning the timing of the questionnaire. Is my noble friend aware that the tourist boards and the Development Commission believe that thousands of jobs would be created and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents consider that up to 700 deaths or serious accidents would be saved by having longer daylight hours'?
Does not my noble friend further agree that these matters could be considered at a better time other than the middle of the holiday period, giving only six weeks at that, when it is difficult to obtain an authoritative consultation from the questionnaire? Further, is my noble friend aware that on Friday last the majority of the people in this country went home from work in broad daylight whereas today they will be plunged into pitch darkness?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the flaw in my noble friend's argument on the six-week period for response is that the deadline was met by the majority of the respondents.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is not the gist of this matter that one would expect mid-summer and midwinter to fall in the middle of the period of British summer time and Greenwich mean time respectively? However, they do not. The position has become lopsided and needs to be adjusted.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if it needs to be adjusted that will be shown as a result of the consultations we are now undertaking.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is not my noble friend's haste reflected by the consultation period? Does not that indicate that Her Majesty's Government are in a hurry to reach a decision on this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have to come to a decision because summer time in Europe runs out at the end of next year. We await a directive from the Commission on this matter and I confirm that any order will have to be debated in this House.

Merton: Investment of Ratepayers' Assets
2.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 have any advice to offer the London borough of Merton in respect of the proposal to invest? 200 million of ratepayers' assets on the Stock Exchange.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is undesirable for any council to use ratepayers' funds or assets for speculative investment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that Merton Council has not abandoned its plans to do precisely that but has merely referred to a sub-committee its proposals to invest £200 million of ratepayers' assets on the Stock Exchange? Would he care to comment on how it is that an authority such as Merton, which for the past seven years has slavishly followed the Government's directions on local government, finds itself in a position where it has had to contemplate doing that which is presently on the table?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords. I am unaware of any slave-like activities by Merton Council. I am glad that Merton's scheme is now on ice, and the sooner it is finally buried the better.
Baroness David: My Lords, is what Merton was proposing to do until the events of last week any different from what a number of Labour-controlled councils have been severely criticised for doing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is a subtle difference between the two. The difficulty is that in history people sometimes forget that stock markets fall. As long ago as the 18th century the Master in Chancery speculated with court funds in the South Sea Bubble.
Baroness David: My Lords, could not both activities be called creative accounting, which has come in for such criticism?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, unfortunately I do not have any qualifications in accountancy.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that as a result of the malarky of last week on the Stock Exchange—that is all it really is—Merton has now changed its mind and is horrified at the result of dipping into that market?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the legality of stock market investment by councils under the present law has yet to be tested in the courts. The Government are keeping under review how best to ensure financially prudent behaviour by councils.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, instead of asking the Government to give advice to boroughs such as Merton and others which are involved in this practice, the time has come for us to rally behind the Government's reforms which do away with the need for them to advise local authorities and which strengthen the accountability to the people whom the local authorities serve? It should be for the people to pass judgment on the local authorities and not for us to sit here in this House and ask the Government to give advice.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks, and I entirely concur in them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Chancellor shortly be investing taxpayers' money in stocks, shares and bonds, and, if so, in what categories?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that goes very far from the Question on the Order Paper.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the Government congratulate the citizens of Merton on having £200 million to invest when unfortunate people like us in Camden find that we are short of a great deal more than that and we have to borrow?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that part of the problem was that Merton did not have the £200 million.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would it not be helpful for the Minister to ask his right honourable friend to invite Merton Council into his office for a chat? When passing on that request, will he ask him to treat this Conservative-controlled council with a little more respect and less contempt than the Secretary of State showed to Labour-controlled authorities which were invited to discuss their problems with him last week and which were told that as a precondition they would have to embrace the whole of the Government's legislative programme before any discussions could take place?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Merton has not sought ministerial approval for any part of its scheme. I assume that it satisfied itself that no consent was required.

Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause
("PART IIIA
Scope of Part IIIA.

QUESTIONS AS TO SENTENCING
(1) A case to which this section applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) below.
(2) This section applies to any case in which sentence is passed on a person—

(a) for an offence triable only on indictment; or

(b) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.

(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.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuant of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) In this Part of this Act "sentence" includes—

(a) any order except an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983; and

(b) a recommendation for deportation,

and "sentencing" shall be construed accordingly.")
The noble Earl said: At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 42, 43, 31 and 260.
We come now to what is perhaps the most difficult issue with which we shall have to grapple in this Committee. The means by which the system responds to the occasional unduly lenient sentence has been the subject of several memorable debates in recent years. Whether one describes such occasions as this place at its best tends, in my experience, to depend very much on whether one was on the winning or the losing side. So I shall not venture a view on that.
What has characterised these debates, however, and indeed it has been the subject of criticism by Members opposite, has been the persistence, not to say tenacity, with which the Government have attempted to find a satisfactory solution. I make no secret of the fact that within government we have wrestled with the problem and have at different times been attracted by different approaches to it. The reason for our persistence is that the problem is too important to ignore. One can set it aside for a while, as we were forced to do in 1985 when this place rejected our proposal in the Prosecution of Offences Bill, but it does not go away. The harm to public confidence which the occasional over-lenient sentence can cause is too corrosive to be ignored. If we had not been convinced of that, we would have abandoned the search for a satisfactory solution long ago.
I believe that in the clauses which are now before the Committee in my name there is a satisfactory solution which should commend itself to a majority if not all of the Committee. I shall come on to explain the content of the provisions, but perhaps I could first outline the nature of the problem as we see it and the contribution which we hope these clauses will make towards meeting it. The problem, as I have said before, is not that sentences are generally unduly lenient, far less that there is any great crisis of confidence which calls for radical changes in our system of sentencing. Sentencing is a difficult and sensitive task and it is a tribute to the judiciary, lay and professional, that the vast majority of sentences accord very well with the expectations of the public. It is rather that occasionally, especially in a serious case where public emotions can be understandably engaged, a sentence is passed which arouses widespread concern.
At the moment there is no obvious remedy for such concern. That was why we brought forward the proposal in the Prosecution of Offences Bill, and in slightly different form in this Bill, for the Attorney-General to be able to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal and for the court to give its opinion about the sentencing principles involved. It was, we thought, a modest but worthwhile proposal. It built on the procedure which already exists for the Attorney-General to refer points of law arising in cases in which the accused is acquitted; and it provided a basis for reassurance that, even if the offender whose case was referred was not affected, lessons would be learnt for the future.
Both in the debate on the Prosecution of Offences Bill and in our earlier debates on this Bill and its predecessor, that proposal has been attacked from two contradictory directions. Some noble Lords have argued that involving the Attorney-General in any way was wrong in principle because the prosecution should have no involvement in sentencing.
Although, as I shall explain in a moment, we do not regard a degree of prosecution involvement, short of seeking to influence the actual sentence imposed, as unthinkable, we recognised that this was a sensitive issue for many. We had hoped that by framing the proposal as we did—as a procedure which did not put the offender at risk of a more severe sentence—we would avoid offending these sensitivities. Clearly that was not the case.
The second line of criticism came from those who argued that our proposal was too modest to be worth while; that it would do nothing to improve public confidence if the Courtof Appeal said, in effect, that a sentence had been too lenient but had no power to put it right; and that the court should be given power to substitute a more severe sentence. Several of my noble friends, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and several noble and learned Lords who speak from the Cross-Benches with great authority on these matters argued in that sense in our debate in April, as have many of my honourable friends in another place.
Caught, as it were, in the cross-fire, it seemed to my right honourable and learned friend that there was considerably more force in the second of these
316
objections than in the first. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, reminded us in the debate on 27th April, several Commonwealth countries with impeccable common law traditions—including Australia, Canada and New Zealand—have systems under which their Attorney-General can take sentences to their appellate courts and there is power to increase them. The lack of a power to substitute a more severe sentence was undoubtedly a weakness in our original proposal. Our conclusion, reflected in the amendments now before the Committee, was that we should seek to rectify it.
Perhaps I could turn now to these amendments. They would confer on the Attorney-General a power to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed by the Crown Court where it appeared to him to be unduly lenient. The leave of the Court of Appeal would be required. On considering a reference under the new procedure, the court would be able to substitute whatever sentence it thought appropriate, provided it would have been within the powers of the Crown Court.
My right honourable friend proposes that, in the first place at least, the power should be available only in relation to sentences imposed where one of the offences charged was purely indictable; that is, where it was so serious that it can only be tried in the Crown Court. This would cover the most harmful offences, which give rise to greatest public concern. But we do not rule out extending the new procedure to other Crown Court sentences imposed after conviction on indictment, once all those concerned have become familiar with its operation. The first of the new clauses gives my right honourable friend power to make such an extension.
We think it conceivable, though unlikely, that the procedure could give rise to points of law of such general public importance that they might usefully be referred to your Lordships' House for its opinion. This is provided for in the second of the new clauses and in the new schedule.
We have given a good deal of thought to the position of the offender whose case is to be the subject of a reference under the new procedure or more particularly whose case may become the subject of such a reference. Although I do not share the fears which the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Mishcon, expressed in our debate in April, they raise a serious question. It would be intolerable if all those whose sentences were subject to the new procedure had to endure a long period of uncertainty about whether it would be used. In an effort to meet this concern we propose that there should be a strict time limit of 28 days within which the Attorney-General would have to give notice of an application for leave to refer any particular sentence. Any offender whose sentence was referred to the Court of Appeal would be entitled to be legally represented and to have his costs met from central funds.
My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General envisages that the power would be used sparingly, where a sentence was clearly out of line and not just arguably on the low side. On that basis, he would not expect there to be more than a dozen or so references each year. It is clearly difficult to be precise about this, but experience in the

317
Commonwealth countries to which I have referred suggests that these cases, while by no means unknown, are relatively rare events.
It will be argued, I am sure, that our proposal will bring about an unacceptable change in the role of the prosecution in our system of trial. We are no strangers to that argument and it was fears about the possible effect on the role of the prosecution that caused us to bring forward the earlier, more modest proposal.
Reflecting on the matter, however, we have come to think that these fears were exaggerated. It is one thing to say, as the bar's code of professional conduct does, that the prosecutor should not seek by advocacy to influence the court's decision. None of us would want to see British prosecutors calling for particular sentences as their counterparts do in some countries. But is that really what is proposed here? The Attorney-General will undoubtedly want to be advised by the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding which cases to refer. The service will undoubtedly need to develop a familiarity with sentencing principles which it does not now possess. I do not underestimate the significance of that change. But there is a gulf between, on the one hand, the prosecution forming a measured professional view on whether a particular case is one that should be drawn to the Attorney-General's attention, and, on the other, its attempting improperly to influence the court's decision on sentence. The former seems to me an acceptable, though significant, development of existing practice. The latter would indeed be inimical to our traditions.
I think it might assist the debate if I confined my remarks at this stage of the debate to this explanation of why the Government have brought forward these amendments. I should prefer to hear the arguments of noble Lords opposite in support of their proposals on the judicial studies board and on the idea of a sentencing council before commenting on them in any detail. But I ought perhaps to say now that if these proposals are intended as substitutes for the Government's proposal they do not seem to me to measure up. Our own view, having grappled with the issue for several years now, is that it needs to be addressed more directly. That is the purpose of the Government's amendments which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Members of the Committee will be grateful to the noble Earl for almost the last observation that he made—namely, his willingness to listen to the argument. These are very important matters of public policy. They are very important matters governing the confidence of the citizen in the machinery for his protection, in particular against the background of the alarming amount of crime and its continuing increase. Therefore, in these debates today, we touch upon very serious matters.
I propose to consider the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. Firstly, I deal with the question of sentencing. No two crimes are exactly the same; no two alleged offenders are exactly the same. Perfection in arriving at a sentence that satisfies everybody—be they judges or the public at large—would be too much to hope for. At least,
318
however, one would hope for greater consistency in sentencing; that is the matter to which Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are directed.
On sentencing, we say frankly that what the Government propose is unacceptable. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would empower the Attorney-General—and the initiative would go to him—to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a sentence which the Attorney-General considers to be unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal is empowered to pass a more severe sentence. That is the real object and hope of the exercise, as I understand it, if the Court of Appeal thinks fit. It falls therefore initially to the Attorney-General to make the decision, and it is he alone who can initiate it. As a former Attorney-General, I do not like that at all. It plunges the Attorney straightaway into one side of the trial process—and of the prosecution process. I believe that this would be damaging to his position, well established over the centuries in representing the public interest fairly and firmly. That is one objection that I have in the light of my own experience of that great office.
What is proposed is objectionable on two matters of principle. Firstly, it would subject the offender to a form of double jeopardy—of being tried twice in effect for the same offence. The principle is quite different from what was originally contemplated by the Government of referring a problem in sentencing on a general point to the Court of Appeal rather than an individual case upon which a future course of sentencing might be based. But that is now the proposed basis; in other words, that the defendant should be faced twice with court procedures and all that that involves. As NACRO has put it, the prosecution is having two bites at the sentencing cherry. That is too attractive a simile to be worth repeating because it conveys an agreeable procedure; in fact, it imposes upon the defendant a very considerable additional burden.
The defendant would have been through the original trial proper, with the whole procedure carried out. The whole matter; the evidence against him, the police evidence about his record and character and the probation officer's report, would be canvassed, declared and publicly stated. The outcome of the trial might well be not a term of imprisonment but a fine—some would say a mere fine—or at any rate a short prison sentence. What is to happen? First, is there to be a time limit within which the Attorney-General must act to give effect to this machinery? I see no indication in the Bill at the moment in relation to that. It might be days, weeks or months later followed by the whole apparatus of reference to the Court of Appeal. How long that would take I know not.
We want guidance in relation to that. Unless I missed something, it is of importance in itself. But however quickly the matter may come forward, it means that after a man may have served part of his sentence and gone back after a fine to civvy street, to a job and his family, he is called back again and told, "Sorry, the judge made a mistake. You must go through the process again. It may well be that there will be passed upon you a further and additional term of imprisonment to that which you were

319
contemplating or may have partly served". It would not be surprising if that man and his family were to regard that as a somewhat vindictive if not cruel process.
The second objection in principle against that double jeopardy—I hinted at this already in my observations about the role of the Attorney-General—is that it would require the prosecution to take a one-sided, partisan view in favour of greater severity on the sentence an offender should receive. It would require the prosecutor, I suppose, if one wants to be consistent, in his submission to the judge towards the end of the case to say before the jury, as in the best American fashion, "We demand a 10-year sentence at least for this matter".
I am sure that the noble Earl is not contemplating that, but there would at least be some consistency in it. The effect of what is proposed would be that initially the process would presumably start with the prosecuting counsel reporting to the Attorney-General his opinion that the sentence was too lenient, or the Attorney might learn it from the newspapers or other sources. Pressure from the media would be at the root of a great deal of this action. We are moving towards trial by television and the media in this operation. Following that kind of pressure and that kind of process the Attorney-General would then be plunged into the centre of appearing on the side, if I may put it in that way, of greater severity in the light of a case which has already been dealt with by a judge.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Were a sentence to be made subject to a review of this sort, would a newspaper which criticised it before the decision to review was taken be guilty of contempt of court?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That is an interesting question and perhaps the noble Earl could comment on it. It may be an additional risk involved in this whole operation. I know not. My noble friend has a little experience of contempt of court, I believe, and may be able to deal with that.
I return to what I was endeavouring to consider. Throughout the history, certainly in recent times, of our criminal procedures, the duty of the prosecutor and the prosecution has been to lay all the evidence before the court and to leave it to the judge to decide after conviction, if it is a conviction, what the sentence should be. I readily agree that the energy with which some prosecutors pursue their duties is greater than others. On an earlier occasion I think I have mentioned one counsel, who shall be nameless, who was criticised by the defence for over-prosecuting, saying "My Lords, Members of the Jury, I have come here to prosecute the accused, not to present him with a bouquet". One can understand vigour in prosecution but that is quite different from actively intervening in the sentence scene. In my submission it is right that the prosecution should not adopt, or be seen to adopt, a partisan view on the sentence and call for this or that sentence to be imposed.
It is interesting that the Government's White Paper on this matter in March 1986 did not call for such a
320
course of action to be taken. Indeed it resisted it. But now there is a change of approach and a change of mind. While the prosecution can inform the judge of his sentencing powers and supply him with any factual information in relation to sentencing (should the judge invite such assistance) this is quite different from the prosecution adopting a view on whether a particular sentence is lenient. For better or for worse, the better course at the end of the day is to trust the judges. The standard of our judiciary at this present time is certainly as good as if not better than at any time. Certainly it is better than it was in my early days at the bar. It is for the judge having heard all the circumstances to make the decision. I agree that it is desirable that the odd idiosyncratic decision should be avoided if possible. In our amendments which follow, Nos. 42 and 43, we are proposing that greater assistance should be provided to the judiciary in the manner suggested in those amendments.
On this major issue of the power to require the Attorney-General to initiate the procedures of increasing the sentence, that is against our whole tradition in the courts. That in itself is not a sufficient argument I agree, but it is against justice and would not increase public confidence in the courts. On the contrary, it would tend to undermine it. As I say, we trust the judges, but it is important to give them as much help as possible. The Lord Chief Justice has sought to do that in the guidances that he has given on many occasions. That procedure depends on an appropriate case coming up on which such general guidance can be given. The field where the greatest inconsistency lies is between one magistrates' court and another, and magistrates' court sentences will rarely reach the Lord Chief Justice. In most of the cases they will not go to the Court of Appeal. Therefore the proposal in the major amendments which we are now examining is contrary to principle and contrary to the best traditions of our prosecution system.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, which we are also discussing, are from across the Opposition board at any rate in that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is attached. There were eloquent speeches earlier in the matter from this side of the board and indeed some support from the other side. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are intended to help the courts, as near as it is humanly reasonable to expect, to achieve consistency in sentencing. The extent of the widespread and alarming variation in the use of custody for the same type of offence by magistrates' courts in particular has pointed to the need for further guidance to remedy this situation if possible. NACRO points out that in 1985 over the country as a whole 20 per cent. of adult males found guilty of indictable offences by magistrates' courts received immediate or suspended sentences, but there were startling differences between areas with similar characteristics. For example, 28 per cent. of adult male offenders in South Tameside were given custodial sentences compared with 9 per cent. in Rotherham; 23 per cent. in Manchester compared with 14 per cent. in Liverpool; 14 per cent. in Newcastle compared with 26 per cent. in Sunderland; 16 per cent. in Windsor compared with 27 per cent. in Exeter; and in two slightly parallel communities in

321
this limited field at any rate—namely, Cambridge and Oxford—the figure was 16 per cent. in Cambridge compared with 25 per cent. in Oxford.
There were similar variations in other parts of the country and they are not, I submit, explicable in different conditions giving rise to the sentences. The Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report, Managing Criminal Justice, itself contained the findings of a study of the sentencing of adult male offenders in 30 magistrates' courts. The proportion and use of immediate custodial sentences varied from 5 per cent. to 23 per cent. Differences in the types of offenders dealt with only in part explained those variations.
I have given some examples of the differences as between one part of the country and another. One of the alarming features of that Home Office report was that chairmen of benches and court clerks knew little about even neighbouring court sentencing practice and indeed considered such knowledge to be irrelevant to their own decisions. I submit that it is clearly unjust that a person's liability to a custodial sentence should depend upon which side of the boundary of jurisdiction of the relevant magistrates' court he may be residing. It is obviously impossible to cure the matter in all cases but it is right that we should seek to remedy that position.
What is proposed in the amendments is the creation of a sentencing council. This is the proposal and suggestion of Dr. Ashworth, the editor of the Criminal Law Review, and a man of experience; it has since been supported by some of the major organisations in this field. This sentencing council, chaired, if he will take it on, by the Lord Chief Justice—who heaven knows is perhaps burdened sufficiently already but he is the expert and the man to advise in this matter—would produce recommendations which would be issued as practice directions. That might aim to produce a set of declared sentencing ceilings for different types and grades of offence—for example, different types of burglary and different types of theft—together with principles for use in calculating the precise sentences beneath that ceiling, including principles governing the sentencing of persistent offenders and multiple offenders, so that at least some guide could be given. That kind of guidance is now a somewhat chancy matter in its consequence when it emerges from a single decision of the Court of Appeal.
It is proposed in Amendment No. 43 that the judicial studies board should be on a statutory basis with a statutory duty to publish from time to time that kind of guidance so that the courts should have the benefit of that experience to guide them in the direction of greater consistency. It is wrong that the ultimate end of the judicial process should depend entirely on a geographical accident. In my submission that would go some way to meet the difficult tasks which courts have of making the punishment fit not only the crime but the offender.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to put forward some arguments to urge the Committee not
322
to support Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 giving this power to the Court of Appeal to increase sentences. As the noble and learned Lord has just said, these amendments involve the Attorney-General up to the hilt in the sentencing process. Therefore they raise very serious matters of principle, matters which were debated at length in our debate in January 1985 on Clause 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Bill.
Under Amendment No. 41 before the Attorney-General can trigger off this appeal to the Court of Appeal to deal with a lenient sentence he has to be satisfied that a judge has wrongly exercised a discretion as to sentence. In reality how will he set about that? It is very difficult to be satisfied that a judge has wrongly exercised his discretion in a sentence. He will receive his information from prosecuting counsel. He cannot get it from anywhere else. Counsel will have to give a written opinion. He will be the one who will initiate the procedure. He will presumably have to have criteria on which to base his judgment, criteria which must be similar across England and Wales, and which presumably will be drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service. He will make his decision in an atmosphere of pressure—pressure from the relatives of the victim or victims, from the media, from the police and, as the Minister has just said, at a time of public emotion. How can he attack a sentence in the Court of Appeal unless he has canvassed the relevant points before the judge at the trial? He will have to stand up and rebut statements made by the defence in mitigation on information which he will presumably receive from the police.
His aim at the trial would have to be to get the judge to pass a certain minimum sentence on instructions from the CPS. He would draw the indictment accordingly. He would refuse to accept pleas to lesser offences. He could not enter into any informal discussion in the judge's chambers with the defence on the matter of sentence, which from time to time saves such hours of court time. All this is to give prosecuting counsel an entirely different role from that which he has followed traditionally hitherto—as a minister of justice, a presenter of the facts, where the court decides guilt and the judge decides sentence. If I may say so with respect to the Minister, it is not a question of prosecuting counsel doing anything improper.
Never as yet has the prosecution in the public eye been lined up with longer sentences and harsher treatment, because of course he is not going to have the power to urge shorter sentences on the Court of Appeal. Once again this proposal shows that this Government are hell-bent on bringing into our criminal process features of inferior systems from overseas. We have seen that in our recent debate on the matter of extradition.
To upset a discretionary decision of a judge in the appeal court one has to show that he acted on some wrong principle. How will the Attorney-General show this when applying, as he has to, to a single judge for leave to refer the sentence, or, if that single judge turns him down, the full Court of Appeal that he has to go to seek leave? The Attorney-General is up to his eyes in this procedure.
How will he do it? He will have to tell the judge the facts of the case, explain the mitigation, summarise

323
the medical or psychiatric reports and summarise the evidence of the defence witnesses. He will have to tell the judge of the prevalence of the particular crime in that district, or the climate of public opinion no doubt and of previous similar cases of that kind. He will have to delve into the probation and social inquiry reports and give the judge some idea of what the trial judge presumably must have been thinking when he passed sentence as he did.
Then in a case the Attorney-General himself, as a member of the executive, will be subject to all sorts of political pressures from constituents, Members of Parliament, victims, relatives and of course the media. This indeed raises matters of principle which should exercise the minds of all Members of this Committee.
On 24th January 1985 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke on the propriety of the Attorney-General having a duty to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal. In order to remind the Committee of what he said, coming from no greater authority, I refer to col. 395 of Hansard. The noble and learned Lord said this:
"First, it is a constitutional monstrosity"—
this suggestion that the Attorney-General should be involved in referring matters to the Court of Appeal.
"Under our constitution the Crown has concentrated in it all the functions of the state: executive, legislative and judicial. But it is accepted as part and parcel of our unwritten constitution that in the conduct of the public business of the state the various functions of the Crown … be kept stringently apart.
The essence of our criminal law is that the Crown, as prosecutor, shall not take part in argument addressed to the Crown as sentencer in the person of the Crown's judge. It is vital, for reasons already developed …that the judicial act of sentencing should be seen to be kept out of the grasp or reach of the Crown as prosecutor and now, when this Bill becomes law, out of the grasp of the national service of prosecutors. This is a judicial function. The prosecution has a lively job to do up to the moment of conviction … The prosecution can assist with the exposition of facts, the elucidation of evidence … but it makes absolutely no submission on the Crown's judicial function, exercised in the person of the judge. At that stage the Crown as prosecutor … has to retreat".
That, I would suggest, is the constitutional position.
Without I hope wearying the Committee I also refer to these words at col. 388 on 24th January 1985, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said this:
"Who is to tell the Attorney-General about the case? Is it the newspapers? God forbid … The only person who can tell the Attorney-General about the case is the Crown prosecutor himself. He will have been in the court. He will have heard the witnesses … and then, after the judge has given his sentence, he will say, 'Ho, Ho! That was much too lenient. I will report this to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General will report it to the Court of Appeal."
Are the judges to be reported like this? … The judge always hears that plea. But never do we allow, nor is counsel for the Crown allowed, a plea in aggravation—because this is what it is".
The noble and learned Lord went on and asked, was he going to be told that his sentence was too lenient?
"appal the thought! We have to remember that it is the Crown prosecutor's duty and the duty of the Bar always to be fair: never to press the case … I would say to counsel for the prosecution, 'I have it in mind to give this man one more chance. I know his record … I have seen him; I have heard what his counsel has said: I think it is right to give him one more chance. I will bind him over.' But if I were to say, 'Mr. Snooks, are you going to suggest afterwards to the Attorney-General that I was wrong?" If he is going to say I was wrong.
324
I should tick him off … But in every case he would say, 'Of course not, my Lord. I leave it to your Lordship'".
He ended up by saying at col. 389:
"It is quite wrong that judges of this country should be reported to the Attorney-General by the prosecution for giving too lenient sentences … It is an entirely wrong procedure and there are entirely wrong suggestions made by this clause".
Also on 24th January 1985 at col. 389 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, speaking as an ex-Attorney-General, said that he believed that:
"it puts an Attorney-General in an impossible position if this proposal [of reporting matters on the shoulders of the Attorney-General] remains … from where does the Attorney-General obtain his information? Will he respond to clamour, which is the worst possible guide for anybody in dealing with the prosecution of offenders and the responsibility for the administration of the law?".
Those were the views expressed so short a time ago. As we have already heard, the government White Paper in March 1986 said that these proposals:
"could affect the relationship between the Attorney-General, the prosecution, and the judiciary in a way which would not contribute to public confidence nor serve the interests of justice".
The weight of those views is absolutely overwhelming. It is wrong in principle, wrong constitutionally and wrong traditionally.
Now how is it that all these views are suddenly to be thrown overboard? The great characteristic of our system of sentencing is that judges decide on individual cases using their own judgment, having the feel of the case to which they have listened and heard and paying attention of course to what guidelines there may be from the Court of Appeal. Sometimes they are prepared to take a risk; sometimes they are prepared to use their imagination; sometimes they even pay heed to those who have studied penal problems and they ignore media opinion. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Bridge and Lord Scarman, might take a very different view from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Templeman and Lord Brandon, of what is right. The view must be broad and views will always differ.
In the end what about the defendants? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, after months of suspense the defendant will be put into a position of double jeopardy. To put the case on this question I need do no more than quote the highest authority in the land—and this is the last point that I wish to put before the Committee—who spoke in the debate on 24th January 1985. His words are to be found in the Official Report at col. 399. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to the speech made at the Mansion House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in which he said:
"there are the occasions, happily not frequent, when there is an outcry about a particular sentence passed by a judge. … This difficulty will never be cured until there is introduced, as there should be, with suitable stringent safeguards, a right in the Crown to appeal a sentence manifestly too light".
So said the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in 1983 and he, as we all know, has campaigned for many years for that power.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said:
"I was present at that dinner and I reacted to what the Lord Chief Justice said. … I was afraid that he was suggesting a retrial in the sense of double jeopardy. As a matter of fact, that is a construction which, in the heat of the moment, could legitimately be put on the words. … It is almost as important not to have double jeopardy in sentence as not to have double jeopardy in conviction. A man must

325
not be put on trial twice, once the trial has come to a legitimate conclusion. That is almost, though perhaps not quite, as important in relation to sentence as it is to conviction. I thought perhaps that was what was being suggested at the time, and I said so in my speech in reply, which came later in the evening".
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord still believes that, just as the other noble and learned Lords still believe what they said then. As they were referring to matters of principle, presumably they still believe what was said then.
What has happened to change all that? During the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said (at col. 1309 of the Official Report on 27th April) that there was now a:
"sinister new blood sport of attacking Her Majesty's judges",
and that, he said, was,
"a short cut to destabilising society".
If that is how the judiciary have come to look at criticism of themselves, one does not have far to look. The power that is asked for is not a matter of principle and not a necessary part of our criminal process, but, I suggest, is regarded as just machinery to enable the judges to answer back.
That is no basis for a revolutionary change for the worse in our criminal trials system. This matter has nothing whatever to do with party politics. It is above politics of whatever complexion. I suggest that it is a deeply serious matter and I hope that Members of the Committee will vote, or abstain from voting, on the principle of that issue and make sure that these amendments go no further.
Before I sit down perhaps I may refer to two other amendments tabled in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones. I support both these amendments, which concern the setting up of a sentencing council and the giving of statutory authority to the judicial studies board. I support them for the basic reason that at the moment in this country there is no general policy whatever on sentencing. The judges receive guidelines from time to time from the Court of Appeal. From time to time they hold sentencing seminars and they have a certain amount of literature to read on the matter. However, I suggest that judges spend most of their time responding to what they see or believe to be public opinion.
If there were a sentencing council which consisted of a majority of judges but with an input from persons outside the judiciary who have expertise of one kind or another in the matter of penology, from time to time one would be able to have principles enunciated across the board to assist the courts with some sort of sentencing policy. At the moment there is practically no assistance in the lower band of sentencing. Nearly always the Court of Appeal issues guidance on the more serious offences and in the high echelons of sentencing but there is almost nothing in the two-years-and-below sentencing policy.
The only way that one will ever achieve any policy, and therefore contribute to the lessening of the terrible overcrowding in our prisons, is to find out why we sentence—the reason for sending so many more people to prison—and why our sentences are so much higher than any other country in Europe. I suggest that those are matters which need looking
326
into and could be looked into by a sentencing council or the judicial studies board.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lane: First of all I should like to deal or attempt to deal with the question of over-lenient sentences. It is a truism that justice is two-edged. If it is open to a person who thinks that he has been sentenced too severely to appeal against that sentence, it seems to me that it should likewise be open to the Crown to appeal in a case in which a man has manifestly been sentenced too lightly. Other jurisdictions which operate the common law use such a system without trouble and I was sorry to hear them referred to as "inferior". I do not think that either Canada or Australia would welcome that remark.
The system works perfectly well in those "inferior" jurisdictions. They regard our system as being somewhat antediluvian and mildly amusing. I respectfully suggest that the argument that the Crown should have no part in sentencing is not sustainable. The Crown already has a large part in sentencing, and first of all in selecting the offences which are to be levelled against the defendant, because on those offences will depend the amount of punishment that can be inflicted. Secondly, the Crown has a part to play—and it is a part which it plays increasingly now—in assisting the judge to determine, amidst the mass of sentencing options that are now on the statute book, what his powers are and to draw his attention to the guidelines, if there are any referable to the particular case, which have emerged from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Indeed, the more the prosecution can play a part in the sentencing process—without, it hardly needs saying, demanding X years as the minimum—the less likely it is that the need will arise for the Crown to appeal against an over-lenient sentence. The judge will have been referred to the necessary statutory enactments and referred, one hopes, to the relevant guidelines issued by the court.
I support the proposal in the terms in which it appears, save for one small matter which appears to me to be open to possible misconstruction. The wording is:
"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".

It seems to me that the words from "because" onwards are unnecessary and could be omitted without doing the clause any harm. That would remove any possibility of misconstruction. In brief, may I suggest that this is a power which is necessary? At the moment, to take an extreme example, there is no redress if a judge, with a rush of blood to the head, should fine a severe rapist 50 pence. There is no redress and, bluntly, that is something I suggest should be remedied.
May I turn now to the clauses proposed under Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 concerning matters which have just been raised. The system already in existence for issuing guidelines, so it seems, is sufficiently helpful, certainly according to the various consumers in the shape of judges to whom I have had the opportunity of speaking. Guidelines should be

327
issued sparingly. You overdo guidelines and people start to cast them on one side and pay no attention to them. Guidelines are like motorways; they fill with traffic simply through being constructed. There is, unhappily, no difficulty about finding a vehicle for guidelines. There is always a case in the never-ending pipeline in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which provides a vehicle for this type of exercise.
However, more fundamentally, I would suggest it is quite wrong that matters of sentencing should be taken out of the hands of Parliament which sets out the basis in law of sentencing and of the judges whose task it is to interpret those laws. It is quite wrong that such matters should be given to this sort of hybrid body to determine. It is neither a parliamentary body nor a judicial body. The members are apparently answerable to no-one. The fact that I am apparently to have the doubtful privilege of presiding over the body's deliberations does not seem to me a sufficient attraction. It is introducing a concept into the law which creates a very dangerous precedent for the future. It is removing a large portion of the independence of the judiciary and putting in its place something of which it is very difficult to see the end.
The judges, in any event, as I see it—or the magistrates, come to that—would be entitled to ignore the effusions of this body if they saw fit. Moreover, it should be remembered that the judicial studies board, although it has developed enormously in the recent past, was instituted for and still remains principally in existence for the training of judges and the training of magistrates. To erect the judicial studies board into a sort of semi-legislative body, as this proposal would wish, seems to me to be a wholly undesirable and retrograde step.
Lord Wigoder: I follow with hesitation, as always, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. If I disagree with some of his conclusions and some of his arguments I hope he will at least agree with me when I make one remark that is perhaps not self-evident as a truth. It is wrong to believe that there is such a thing as a correct sentence for each criminal offence. It does not exist. It is not only, as has been said, that every defendant differs from every other defendant. He differs in his mental or physical capacity, in his criminal record, in the temptations to which he was exposed or in his upbringing—innumerable matters of that sort.
Defendants differ and victims differ enormously one from another. There is no comparison, if one is passing sentence in a rape case, between an innocent girl in her teens and a semi-prostitute, who at the very last minute has said "No". There is no comparison, if one is passing sentence in particular cases, between the circumstances of an individual case, the prevalence of the offence at that time and a myriad of other matters. All those factors make every single case different from every other case. They make the task of the judge difficult and the task of the Court of Appeal even more difficult if a case goes to them.
Indeed, if I can pursue that matter a little further, the trial judge has at least one advantage that the Court of Appeal is never going to have. He has tried the case; he has seen everybody involved; he has
328
heard what was said. And, apart from the actual evidence as reported and written down in the transcript, the trial judge has had the opportunity of forming an impression of the defendant and of the witnesses. The trial judge has an impression as to how far a particular defendant may or may not be speaking the truth when he says that he regrets a particular matter. The trial judge will have an impression as to how far one defendant may have been under the influence of another defendant or been carried away by a particular witness on a certain matter.
All these are ingredients which only the trial judge is in a position to assess. I suggest therefore that it makes it far more likely that the trial judge will get the sentence right rather than that the Court of Appeal will get the sentence right, even though that court may consist of three judges rather than one. The ability to be there and to have heard the case is far more important than the possibility of three judges examining the documents and coming to the right conclusion.
Those matters of sentencing essentially have to be left to the judge's discretion. Indeed, I do not know what has happened to the judge's discretion during the last seven days. Only last week in your Lordships' Chamber we were debating a series of proposals about the admissibility of evidence. Some of us had doubts as to whether certain matters such as documentary evidence could safely be admitted. What were we told by the Government and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill? Their response was, "You can safely leave those matters to the judge's discretion". If such a matter could safely be left to the judge's discretion last week, I find it difficult to see why matters of sentencing cannot equally be left to the judge's discretion this week, particularly where, as I say, the judge is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of the details of the case.
Of course, what has led the Government to take this step, they pretend, is what they call public opinion. It is not public opinion at all that is outraged by lenient sentences; it is hysterical headlines in the tabloid press. One has only to test that, and I think prove it in this simple way. We can all think of occasions over the last, say, 12 months when there have been headlines in the tabloid press complaining bitterly about a lenient sentence. I ask this question rhetorically, but I shall sit down if anyone wants to give an answer: can any noble Lord remember a single occasion when the tabloid press has complained with equal hysteria about an excessive sentence? Yet the fact is that excessive sentences take place because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice spends a certain amount of time in the Court of Appeal dealing with appeals against excessive sentences. Why is the tabloid press not interested in excessive sentences?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The answer to the noble Lord's question is: yes, I can certainly think of a great number of cases where the press, the tabloid press included, has complained of sentences being excessive.
4 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: I should be grateful if perhaps on another occasion the noble and learned Lord would give me the details. Perhaps I may give just one or two illustrations of the points I am making. Not very long ago a young man at a football match punched somebody and I think also committed an offence with a knife. For the offence with the knife he was very properly sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; for the offence of punching somebody he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The popular press said, "Judge slams football hooliganism". It was only the legal profession that realised that this case had gone absolutely berserk, and in due course the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was able to put that matter right on appeal.
I should like to give another example of the popular reaction to a sentence and how wrong it can be. It was only a few weeks ago that a gentleman of some eminence was sent to prison because he had made multiple applications in a share issue. That sentence, which caused a certain amount of concern, again among the legal profession, was rectified before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice when it came to the Court of Appeal. But what happened when the original prison sentence was passed? I say with regret that it was reported with gloating by a speaker at the Labour Party conference and huge cheers arose from the hall when the prison sentence was announced. It was quite wrong. The sentence was wrong and we know now that it was wrong, but I venture to think it shows that the public or the press are not very good judges of the accuracy of a sentence.
Baroness Phillips: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but if he were to spend a few hours going round some of the women's organisations, he would hear what they have to say about it; that is not based on the popular press, but is based on cases which many of them can actually speak of from personal experience. I found the noble Lord's statement that rape is different according to the victim very dangerous. Rape is rape against whoever it is committed.
Lord Wigoder: The noble Baroness has anticipated with some accuracy what I was about to say. I was going to suggest eventually, at the end of my observations, that when we come to deal with sentence and with newspaper hysteria one of the problems is in fact the existence of those very organisations to which the noble Baroness is referring, which seem to think that every case of rape has to be dealt with by 10, 15 or 20 years' imprisonment. They are quite incapable of distinguishing which cases should receive a long, medium or short sentence, or perhaps even no prison sentence at all.
I think it is accepted that the number of cases that we are talking about is very few indeed. The Minister stated that perhaps in future, if this proposal were carried, some 12 cases a year might be referred to the Court of Appeal. Let us suppose that in half of those cases the appeal is successful. In these circumstances we are all getting worked up, as we are in this
330
particular debate, about something that might affect six people a year. I think that we ought to keep it in perspective. We ought to bear in mind that if we are dealing with, say, half a dozen people a year, then we would be embarking down a really rather perilous path. I accept of course what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said about the fact that at the moment prosecuting counsel play a role in the criminal process which includes a part in the sentencing process. However, under the proposal which the Government are now putting forward it will be a quite different part, a wholly unprecedented part, and I think a very undesirable part.
Finally, the result of the Government's proposal will be to create a procedure which inevitably will be lengthy. It was good of the Government to listen to the arguments at an earlier stage and to say that the Attorney-General must announce his decision within 28 days of the trial. That is not of very much help unless the case is then going to be tried with speed. We all know that, because of the pressures of work in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), the probabilities are very much against that. Indeed, I would add that not only are the probabilities against it, but the practicalities are against it, because in any case of any complexity the Attorney-General for a start and the Court of Appeal for a certainty will want a transcript of the whole of the proceedings at the trial court if they are to give any sort of reasoned judgment on sentence. Those transcripts are not merely expensive—they cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in a long case—but they take months and months to supply.
So let us not pretend that under the Government's proposals people will not be kept in very real suspense over a very long period. Whether, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said on a previous occasion, this would amount to double jeopardy, I am not absolutely sure on a strict analysis of what double jeopardy means; but I think that it would be very unfair to a defendant that after a substantial period of time, perhaps at liberty, he should be taken back into court and, because of a difference of opinion between three judges and one judge, he should then find himself deprived of his liberty.
I cannot help thinking that to some extent what we are dealing with here is what we are dealing with in other parts of this Bill: a sort of instant legislation. It is an immediate, over-hasty reaction to a problem which, when it is looked at calmly and coolly, is nothing like the pressing problem that it appears to be. I very much doubt whether the Government's proposal here is really anything more than a sop to the popular press and a sop to certain organisations that delight in saying that particular sentences are inadequate.
Lord Denning: I have taken part in most of the debates on this subject in the past. May I say today that I have been much inflenced by the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Wigoder. They were the sentiments which I expressed before. I dislike the idea of the Crown Prosecution Service

331
taking part in this sentencing process and saying how long it should be; and, if it is thought to be too short, reporting it to the Attorney-General. I dislike that process altogether and it is for those reasons that in the past I have been against any appeal on the ground that sentences are too lenient. However, I have to confess that, not the first time, I have changed my mind. As an example I shall cite, this instance from the past: I remember when I was a judge at the Old Bailey trying a case where two girl cyclists, riding quite innocently and calmly across the road, were killed. Their lives were shattered and their relatives distressed beyond measure because the driver, who was of good character and driving a huge car, had overtaken when he ought not to have done and had mown down those two girls. I was influenced by his good character, I was influenced by his appearance in the dock and I thought on the whole that I would be merciful. I sentenced him to nine months.
Of course the judge has to decide then and there without any time for reflection, without being able to find the impact on the victims or their relatives; and the evening afterwards I thought "Oh, dear. I have made a mistake. I ought to have given that man 18 months or two years". That shows how judges, with the best intentions in the world, can go wrong by being too lenient, and there is no remedy.
I have recently had letters from relatives and parents of youngsters who have been killed in almost similar circumstances, and perhaps there has not even been a sentence of imprisonment against the drunken or reckless driver. It is those experiences which lead me to suggest that I was wrong earlier; that there ought to be, in very rare but occasional cases, an appeal against a sentence which is unduly lenient. That is one aspect.
The other aspect—I must say it—is the influence of the media today. Members of the Committee remember the Ealing Vicarage case. You will all remember how the press and the other media at once seized on the sentence as unduly lenient. It was altogether wrong, they said. But when the media criticise judges and sentences in that way it affects the confidence of people in our system of justice and the judges. It shakes the confidence of the ordinary public in our system of justice if the media can make these allegations against the judges and they go uncontradicted and unremedied. It is the influence of the media which needs to be corrected in order to re-establish the confidence of the public in our administration of justice.
Of course the media are entitled to do this. Lord Atkin once said that justice is not a cloistered virtue. It must be subject to the outspoken comments of ordinary men. Yes, it is subject to them. If those comments are justified, then there is a case for the matter to be brought before the Court of Appeal to see whether a sentence was unduly lenient. There is the safeguard in this provision that it is done with leave only of the Court of Appeal itself. Before there is any appeal, a judge looks at it and it is only by his leave that it can be taken up. So I have now changed my mind, and, on the whole, I would support this clause as now put forward by Her Majesty's Government.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope to be fairly short because I have taken part in most of the previous debates. The trouble is that the subject is a rather more intricate one than lends itself to a very short speech, but I shall do my best. I have not changed my mind substantially, unlike my noble and learned friend who has just spoken. The point is that consistency of sentencing policy is the name of the game. I utterly dispute what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is simply a reaction on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers to tabloid press hostility to sentences on the ground that they are too lenient.
As the noble Lord spoke, two cases came to my mind—I shall not expatiate on them—where two members of the judiciary were hounded to their death by the popular press on the grounds of excessive severity and they were wrong both times. I could give him particulars of both cases. But the truth is that there are principles of sentencing. It is of course true that every case differs to a greater or lesser extent from another. I accept that from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. But in fact there are principles of sentencing which ought to be laid down. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that this is essentially a judicial function, and as a judicial function it ought to be subject to review by the ordinary appellate process in one way or another.
I ask the Committee to take, for instance, the Ealing rape case, which has been mentioned more than once. There were two quite separate issues there which raised general principles. They were both, as it happens dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, because the matter, by sheer chance, happened to come before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on appeal by one of the other defendants. Otherwise it could not have been reviewed at all without a clause of this kind.
The two separate issues were whether the totality of the sentences was adequate compared with other cases, but also it was about the proper use by a judge at first instance of consecutive and concurrent sentences, even where the totality of the sentences was the same. Both of those difficulties were discussed authoritatively by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and I hope that the matter has to some extent, thereby been disposed of. But they came before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) by a side door, simply because one of the other defendants had complained that his sentence was too long.
Going on from there, one has to say this. Rape is not the only type of case which has given rise to criticism. My noble and learned friend who has just spoken speaks of the motoring cases which result in death and serious injuries. While I was Lord Chancellor I had a whole sequence of complaints from the public with regard to these. Or let us take the much more recent and far more difficult cases which came before the Old Bailey about commercial frauds in the City of London. One was the case of the young man who put in multiple applications for a public issue of shares. The other two were cases in which insider dealing was in question.

333
It is important that these matters should be dealt with in a consistent way. The two insider dealing cases were dealt with by suspended sentences. The case of the young man who was able to appeal against sentence was dealt with originally by an immediate custodial sentence, and it was put right because there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal, who said that he had got by by the skin of his teeth. In his absence, I think I am quoting directly from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice.
There are general principles of sentencing and one cannot leave it to the haphazard working of a one-sided arrangement to see that the Court of Appeal has proper seisin of discussions of that kind. Hitherto, apart from the chance that an appellant appeals against a sentence as excessive, the matter has been dealt with by one of two devices. One is by private admonition, shall I call it, by somebody of great authority—let us say that it might be my noble and learned friend or it might be another high judicial figure—that a judge is consistently too lenient. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with matters of principle. The other way is by what are called guidelines. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has with great clarity on occasion issued guidelines for cases of rape and other crimes of violence which have been of the greatest possible advantage. But guidelines are not enough. My noble and learned friend himself explained one of the difficulties about guidelines; they tend to attract traffic more than the circumstances demand.
However, there is another difficulty. It is that guidelines in themselves are hound to be generalisations. What is required in order to build up a body of case law or jurisprudence is that decisions are reported in the legal press, not the tabloid press, based upon a review of cases of the same general type. These can only arise out of a matrix of actual fact in a concrete case. It is precisely the individuality of the concrete case which, to my mind, renders a clause of this kind an urgent necessity. I am glad to know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice seems to be of the same mind as myself in this matter.
It is said that the role of prosecuting counsel (or that of the Attorney-General) is necessarily compromised by the proposals in the clause. I do not agree. The Attorney-General already has a power of reference against an acquittal which is exercised in about the same number of cases, perhaps fewer if anything, than the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, mentioned. It has proved an unqualified benefit to our judicial system that what could be called a review of an acquittal on a point of law should be discussed in a higher court. That was not possible before. I attacked a criticism of another amendment on the basis that it was too revolutionary in a previous debate on the Bill. I wish that the Front Bench opposite would be a little less conservative in their approach to traditional attitudes.
To begin with, let us deal with the role of the Attorney-General which is to be controlled by leave of the Court of Appeal. His only role is to see that general principles are involved and that they should he discussed by the judiciary at a higher level than they were at first instance. I do not believe that to be
334
a difficult role to play. It is certainly no more difficult than the Attorney-General having to apply for a review of acquittal where a point of law arises on an acquittal by direction.
I agree absolutely with what has been said on all sides that prosecuting counsel is not there to secure severity; but I agree with what fell from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice—not in the course of this debate but on a previous occasion—that the court is entitled to a little more assistance from prosecuting counsel than has been customary in the past. Certainly, when I was at the bar which, alas, was 17 years or more ago, it was common when one conducted a prosecution in a company case to remind the judge of his powers of disqualifying a person as director in certain types of fraud. I have ascertained that that goes on today.
Now that sentencing has become so complex a matter, it is right for prosecuting counsel to be able to point out to a circuit judge or to a High Court judge sitting in the first instance the various options open to him. It is also a part of his duty to point out relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal. These now take the form only of guidelines or successful appeals. But if the clause were passed they would form a useful piece of case law. It is perfectly proper for counsel for the prosecution, without seeking to guide the court to a course of greater severity, at least to point out the relevant general principles of sentencing which are applicable to a particular case and to point the judge to any relevant decisions which have been reported in the professional press.
I do not think I was a keen prosecutor of the type referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I did a certain amount of prosecuting. Nevertheless, I cannot see myself being any more embarrassed than one is anyway when prosecuting in drawing attention to relevant facts, sometimes by way of mitigation and sometimes by way of aggravation. One's duty is to see that the court is fully informed about the relevant considerations. I cannot see that that duty would be in any way rendered more difficult on appeal by way of review under the clause than it should be in modern circumstances in the way of conviction. One wishes to see consistency of sentencing policy. That can only be achieved by a proper selection of cases argued in the context of a matrix of actual fact and before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Although there is much else that I should like to say, I shall not weary the Committee by doing so. However, there are two points I should like to make. First, the Court of Appeal is the judicial body entrusted with this particular function. I should not be doing justice to the debate if I did not say that I agreed wholeheartedly with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in his condemnation of the two alternative sets of proposals contained in the two following amendments. They take away from the judges a judicial function. They create a new hybrid body, part of which is to he nominated by the executive which is wholly contrary to the tradition of this country. The alternative suggestion, if it be an alternative and not a cumulative one, is contained in the second of the two amendments where an

335
educative training body is given a judicial function which is wholly contrary to its nature.
As the late Lord Diplock said in a fairly recent appeal, it cannot be too often stated that the constitution of this country is still based on the separation of powers. It may be that as between the executive and the legislature we have blurred the distinction; but the judiciary is and should remain wholly independent. I regard the two proposals in these amendments as wholly unacceptable for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
I believe that I was given a challenge by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I made it quite clear that I should have preferred an earlier version of this particular proposal. I found myself somewhat unusually supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who took part in the debate. It is contrary to the esprit des lois, or whatever one chooses to call it, to make a man run in jeopardy twice, whether it is on conviction or sentence. I could live with the present form of the clause but I would have preferred it in its earlier form where the man did not have to do so. I regard the name of the game as consistency of sentencing and the proper selection of cases and not one of making the particular man suffer two trials in which the results may be different. It does not matter what happens to the individual offender once he has been tried at first instance; but what does matter is that we should develop a body of jurisprudence in which consistency of sentencing and the general principles of sentencing are decided authoritatively and by the proper body, namely the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
4.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am disappointed to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has changed his mind on this subject. Those of us who have had the great privilege of appearing many times before him in the courts can confirm that this is not unprecedented. He is a legal genius. I remind the Committee that the first thoughts of a genius on any subject must necessarily be correct.
I accept that there are very occasionally excessively lenient sentences. I do not accept that there is any general problem of excessively lenient sentences. I was encouraged to hear the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, say the same. I am not aware of any evidence that would support the assertion, if anyone were to make it, that there is such a general problem.
Individual examples can of course be cited. The Ealing Vicarage rape case is often mentioned. For myself I do not regard it as a true example of an excessively lenient sentence—on the light side perhaps, and certainly not well expressed, but a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment in all was not in my view excessively lenient. Therefore I accept that very occasionally there are excessively lenient sentences but no general problem, because our judges generally do not sentence too leniently. I accept what came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, that in principle justice is offended by a sentence that is excessively lenient. It would obviously be better if there were no excessively lenient sentences. They
336
happen very occasionally because judges are human and to err is human.
My assertion, however, is that any remedy for the rare excessively lenient sentence, including this one, will cause harm immeasurably greater than the harm that the remedy seeks to address. I say this for two basic reasons as well as the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. First, the very existence of the remedy will, I predict, lead to judges imposing higher sentences generally and therefore to a further increase in the prison population. Secondly, the remedy will institutionalise trial by newspaper. Realism, I suggest, requires us to appreciate that no judge will want to be told by the Court of Appeal that his sentence has been excessively lenient. A substantial part of the work of the Crown Court is carried out by part-time judges, assistant recorders and recorders, who sit for four weeks a year. That apart, they carry on their practices usually as barristers in the courts. The ambition of the great majority of them is to become in due course full-time judges.
Last year the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, published a most helpful booklet called Judicial Appointments, the Lord Chancellor's Policies and Procedures. On page 3 there is this passage:
"Another guiding principle is that, as far as possible, candidates should be appointed to permanent judicial posts only when they have successfully prepared and proved themselves by experience in an associated part-time capacity. This has already fully applied to the Circuit Bench and to most of the lower judicial and tribunal appointments. The Lord Chancellor's intention is that it should be progressively applied to all other judicial appointments, including the High Court".
As I say, the ambition of the great majority of assistant recorders and recorders is in due course to become full-time judges. Many of them I predict will believe, at any rate subconsciously, that that worthy ambition will be imperilled if the Court of Appeal were to declare that he or she has passed an excessively lenient sentence.
They are told at their judicial seminars that they should be unselfconscious when sentencing, put the Court of Appeal out of their minds and give the sentence which they think is appropriate on all the individual facts of the particular case before them. If this remedy is introduced into the law, every judge in a criminal case will become self-conscious and be concerned that he will be declared by the Court of Appeal to have been an excessively lenient sentencer. The result will inevitably be a general tendency to give higher sentences to avoid that risk. If I am right and this remedy leads generally to higher sentences, it will have worked a much greater evil than the evil of the occasional lenient sentence.
As a country we send too many people to prison for too long. We have about 49,000 prisoners locked up in accommodation that was not intended to contain more than 42,000. More than one-third of them are two or three to a cell, built in Victorian England for one prisoner only. Sanitation is a disgrace. The Prison Department's declared objective of helping prisoners to lead a "good and useful life" is a pious hypocrisy. Conditions in prison lead to acute tensions between prisoners and staff. We put

337
more people in prison in absolute numbers and relative to population than any other major Western European country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, as Lord Chief Justice, in an important guideline case in 1980 declared:
"This case opens up wider horizons becasue it is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure, if an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, that the sentence is as short as possible, consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal. What the court can and should do is to ask itself whether there is any compelling reason why a short sentence should not be passed".
I wish that that wise advice was heeded more in practice by our sentencing judges. Twenty per cent. of adult males convicted of indictable offences are imprisoned today. Ten years ago the figure was 15 per cent. I oppose the amendment because I predict that its effect will be an overly self-conscious judiciary, sentencing high; and what we need in this country are shorter sentences, not longer.
My second point is that this remedy will be a standing invitation to the tabloids to whip up public feeling about some sentence that they think, usually on a mistaken or incomplete appreciation of the facts, is excessively lenient so as to put the Attorney-General under pressure to refer to the Court of Appeal. If he is a Conservative Attorney-General, then he had better oblige pretty often or he for one will not have a good Tory Party Conference. This remedy is a standing invitation to the tabloids to mount campaigns in any cases that take their fancy. There is no brigade that is easier to pander to than the law and order brigade. This remedy will be a godsend to the tabloids. Trial by newspaper is always reprehensible. The amendment encourages it. For these reasons, I oppose it.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord recognise that the Lord Chief Justice, whom he has quoted as being so adamantly in favour of the shortest possible sentence, would in fact be involved in the process of setting what should be the appropriate sentence in the cases to which he is referring? Does he not regard that as a reassurance?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think that the answer is plain. The effect of the remedy will lead to generally higher sentences, and they will not get up to the Court of Appeal. I object to generally higher sentences.
Lord Ackner: I wish to start with what I believe is a relatively simple proposition. A system of justice that makes no provision for correcting a manifest gross error is clearly a deficient system.
At the risk of offending my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, may I be permitted to quote from what the current Chief Justice of Australia said when he was Mr. Justice Mason some three years ago:
"Just as consistency in punishment—a reflection of the notion of equal justice—is a fundamental element in any rational and fair system of criminal justice, so inconsistency in punishment, because it is regarded as a badge of unfairness and unequal treatment under the law, is calculated to lead to an erosion of the public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice."
338
I fully accept what has been said, that the issue of excessively lenient sentences has been grossly exaggerated by, as my noble friend Lord Wigoder said, the hysteria in the press and elsewhere. The sad fact remains that there are hysterical elements in the press and they have every appearance of increasing. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, one of the reasons for the hysterical attacks on judges for undue leniency is precisely that there is no remedy open to correct such sentences. The suggestion that this will result in an invitation to the tabloids overlooks that very important factor.
The description of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when we had the Second Reading in July that the problem was almost non-existent was a failure to face reality. Each and every attack becomes more strident and their cumulative effect is, and is calculated in some respects, to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. I again adopt what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said. There must be an open ventilation of the issues, calmly and objectively expressed, in front of a properly constituted tribunal, which is the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). That is what will disincline the press to adopt the invitation that it accepts so willingly now.
Let me next deal with the suggestion made by a number of my noble and learned friends that it is a very, very difficult matter to determine whether a judge has imposed an excessively lenient sentence. As one who has been reversed as well as upheld but never suffered the ultimate indignity as yet of being explained, let me tell the House that there is no difficulty at all. There were 9,000 sentences of imprisonment in 1985. There were 1,100 successful appeals, 1 per cent. or a little more, against those sentences being too high. What is the problem of determining whether a sentence is grossly below what it should have been? The problem raises no greater difficulty than dealing with the excessively serious sentences and can be determined, as it is now, by looking in the majority of cases at a short transcript. The suggestion that only the trial judge has the feel that enables him to impose the correct sentence is belied by 1,100 successful appeals to which I have referred.
I next deal with the much used, much abused and emotionally-toned phrase of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy in its accepted sense means that a person should not be at risk of being punished twice for the same offence. It is common sense that if a person is punished once and once only properly that is no more double jeopardy than a person whose conviction has been quashed because he has discovered new evidence being put on trial yet again.
Let me next deal with the suggestion that this proposal by the Government introduces:
"a revolutionary change in the conventional role of prosecuting counsel".
I give the House an example. A case came recently to this House on a technical matter in relation to the indictment. These were the basic facts of the case. The prosecution decided to indict the accused for murder. He could have indicted the accused for manslaughter.

339
It was the prosecution who chose the lesser offence. It was for the prosecution to decide whether at trial it would accept, subject to the approval of the judge, the lesser offence. It did not so decide.
When the person was in fact convicted of manslaughter because of the amount of alcohol he had consumed before he killed his girlfriend, it was the prosecutor who called the police not only to give the antecedents of that accused—a common enough matter—but he also invited the police officer to tell the court the details of the last three offences in order to underline that the accused was a menace to women. Despite the traditional role of prosecuting counsel, and without the slightest criticism from anybody, he then called a doctor in order to give evidence to the court that the convicted man was a danger to the public and that therefore the court should give consideration to an indeterminate sentence, namely, life imprisonment, rather than a determinate sentence, when the convicted man might be out again and a danger to the public within a limited period. The court adopted the view of the doctor and gave a life sentence. None of this was the subject matter of any appeal to this House.
It is myopic to a degree to forecast disaster when it is so easy to make an inquiry of competent jurisdictions, for example, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as to what is the consequence of their bringing in—and Canada did it over 60 years ago—exactly what we are considering now. These in terrorem arguments that the skies will fall, without providing the Committee with the slightest indication of what happens in practice, are deeply suspect.
I have taken the opportunity this year, by reason of being the Chairman of the Law Advisory Committee of the British Council, to attend a number of conferences abroad. I have asked the Chief Justice of Australia, the Chief Justice of British Columbia and two senior judges of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand who have sat with us recently in the Privy Council about this. There is no problem at all. Prosecuting counsel behave exactly as we would wish them to do. The only way in which they might exceed the present situation is to say to the learned judge, "If your Lordship has not got the case to hand there has been a recent decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) laying down certain guidelines".
I was interested to note that in the debate on Second Reading both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, "That is fine; that is all right. That is all that may be expected in addition". The bogy of prosecuting counsel banging the desk and demanding 20 or 30 years' imprisonment is totally unreal.
The next matter is the humanity factor, the argument that is intended to melt the soul of this Committee. I cannot understand this deep sympathy for someone who ex hypothesi has committed a serious offence—because that is what we are considering—and has been grossly under-sentenced. It is an affront to the public, it is an affront to the victim. It is perhaps a relief to see that nowadays we are beginning to spend a little time considering the victim.
340
We do not have these scruples for magistrates' courts. A person convicted in a magistrates' court can be the subject of an appeal by case stated on a point of law and the acquittal can be overturned. We do not have these scruples in the House of Lords. If the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashes a conviction and there is leave to appeal, the House of Lords can and does at times reverse that decision and the man is back in prison, assuming he has been on bail.
I now deal with the reference to excessive sentences. Of course my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is perfectly right. There are cases where the media take up the cudgels, alleging excessive sentences. I give one example. About 12 years ago a boy of 16—and I emphasise boy, because he was too young to be sent to prison—was found guilty of attempted murder. He and two other men had knocked down and robbed an elderly man in an underpass under a road in one of the main cities. Not content with that, he went back and tried to finish him off with a brick. Hence the charge and conviction of attempted murder. The boy was sentenced to 20 years' detention under Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act. That is the limit a Home Secretary can keep him in whatever establishment he thinks fit and he can let him out at any time on the recommendation of the Parole Board.
There was an outcry, questions were asked in the House, the judge's resignation was demanded, but there was an appeal so the steam went out of the case and in due course, so little were they moved by this pressure, the judges upheld the sentence. Needless to say, the Court of Appeal's praise for the judge on a sensible sentence barely received a few lines of newsprint.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has been quoted. All I can advise is that his current views be sought, because if they are the same as those he expressed to me at lunch on Friday, that part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, no longer holds water.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have supported the principle of this series of government amendments for a long time. The first time was in this Chamber on the Prosecution of Offences Bill, where we divided against Clause 22 and defeated the Government. In Committee, first time around I tabled Clause 62 and second time around I tabled Amendment No. 45. That appeared in the first Marshalled List but has been withdrawn in favour of the Government's amendments.
The second time, this principle was supported by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning, Lord Roskill and Lord Ackner. I then expressed the hope that the Government would withdraw Clause 38 and introduce their own amendment to give full effect to the principles for which I sought to contend. This has been done and I thank the Government for having adopted the principle and I give my unqualified support for the draftsmanship of this series of amendments.
Why should these reforms proposed by the Government be requisite? It is because consistency in sentencing is the lodestar of the administration of

341
criminal justice, without which the confidence of the public in the system can never be maintained.
Secondly, it is because all judges—thank heavens—are human and as such prone to error, where error engenders serious public concern, even resort to self-help, possibly vengeance, and brings the law into public disrepute. Here, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham knows, I, with respect as always, part company with him. I believe that it matters very much what happens to the offender in this area where public confidence in the due administration of justice is at stake.
The third reason why these reforms proposed by Her Majesty's Government are requisite is simply this. There has to be a corrective and the only corrective we can have, while maintaining the independence of the judiciary, must lie within the judicial system itself. I shall not weary the Committee for long because there have been long speeches, but those basically are the reasons I urge the Committee to support these amendments.
What are the objections? It is said that prosecution is brought into the sentencing arena. It has been pointed out by more than one noble and learned Lord that this simply is not so. If there were any form of constitutional problem about the position of Mr. Attorney—I can see none but I understand the objection—instead of the Attorney-General it could be the Director of Public Prosecutions, as was proposed in my amendment which has been withdrawn in favour of the Government's amendments. However, having listened to what has been said in the Committee, I am satisfied that there is not on analysis any form of constitutional problem here. It is idle to suggest, as was suggested today, that it is wrong and undesirable that there should be pressures on the Attorney-General—political pressures, constituency pressures and media pressures. Any Attorney-General worth his salt could stand up to that.
Another objection appears to be that of double jeopardy, but, as has been explained, that is a total misconception. However, is it not more important that we should maintain public respect for the due administration for the law than that some offender who has committed a serious offence should have the benefit of being over-leniently sentenced? Public confidence in the administration of the law is of far greater importance.
The third objection put forward is that this would or could increase sentences because judges will wish to avoid being subject to review. Anything more wet is difficult to understand. Recorders, and I am one of them, sit as part-time judges. We do not mind, and nor do the regular judges, if we are put right. We do the best we can but we get it wrong at times and the Court of Appeal puts us right if we are too heavy with our sentences. Now it can put us right if we are over-lenient. I cannot understand how it can be said that that could be a reasonable objection.
Finally, it is right that the Committee should appreciate that the effect of this series of Government amendments is not to restore the power of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to what it was, so that
342
it could increase the sentence on appeal against sentence. That is not the effect. The effect is to afford a power of review, subject to an intricate and I would suggest adequate safety-catch mechanism which inhibits any increases in sentences unless the offence is triable on indictment or is a serious offence, as specified by order, or unless it appears to the Attorney-General that it was unduly lenient, as a result of the erroneous exercise of judicial discretion. With respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I should have wished to have kept error of statute or law as a sentencing power because it might be that it was manifestly apparent, from the form of sentence, that the judge thought, as a matter of law, that he was limited in some way. Keeping it can do no harm.
The third safety-catch mechanism is that notice of application has to be given within 28 days, although I do not think that was appreciated, and leave has to be granted. There is then the substantive hearing. It is only then, if the court is satisfied that the sentence was unduly lenient and should be increased, that it is increased.
There is no problem, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner has just said. It is no more difficult for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to see whether a sentence is far too harsh or whether it is far too lenient. Exactly the same factors have to be taken into account to decide the one or the other. It is the same judicial approach. It is done every day of the week in one way. It can be done half a dozen, a dozen or two dozen times a year the other way. If that restores public confidence in the due administration of justice, that is worth a lot.
For those reasons, I suggest that the Committee should support these amendments. The principle is sound; it is right. It has the reasoned support of the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches and, if consistency has any merit in this matter, at least I have always supported it.
5 p.m.
Lord Grimond: I rise with some diffidence on the grounds that I am a layman. It is true that I was once called to the Bar, but not even my worst enemies would say that I am learned in the law. I feel that after this galaxy of legal talent it might be a good thing to turn back to what I believe is the fundamental principle. No doubt there is a strong argument for the amendment. No doubt there is an argument for making the law logical. But in point of fact it is a wholly illogical process. It depends upon goodwill and public understanding. The public understanding is that if a man is put on trial, is convicted and sentenced, he has a right to believe that that is an end of the matter. It may be that he will not be in double jeopardy if the amendment is passed, but he will be in suspended jeopardy. That is repulsive to attitudes held in this country. I do not believe that in passing the amendment we shall increase respect for the law. Far from it. It will be known that the only reason the amendment is before us is because of' the popular press. It was never thought of until the popular press raised the matter. Most people, although they may read the popular press with pleasure, do not want their legal system to be dictated by it.

343
Further, I do not think that the amendment will serve any useful purpose. The type of case which will be referred to the Court of Appeal to increase sentence will be the type of case that appeals to public emotion. It will not be the City slicker who has swindled people out of millions of pounds. Furthermore, it will not deter crime. No criminal will be deterred by the proposal. It will confuse the whole basis of British law.
I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, admitted that it was repulsive to him that there should be even the scintilla of erosion of the principle that once one had been tried for an offence that was that.
If we pass the amendment, we shall be truckling to the public press. The Committee will be eroding the whole principle against suspended if not double jeopardy, and it will do no good for the prevention of crime.
Lord Paget of Northampton: On one occasion a speaker who was following Mr. Disraeli said that all he had to say to this place was, "Ditto to Mr. Disraeli". I say "Ditto" to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. The idea that a man should be put in peril twice—not, should not be punished twice—that he should not go through the trauma of a trial with its result, to have that result taken away from him because the other side wants another run, is not something which the British people will accept. They have never accepted it. It is deep within their feelings. It is a feeling that I share.
Lord Windlesham: I feel the sense of the Committee is that we are reaching the end of this long and fine debate on a matter of fundamental principle. I support the new clause. It is the third version that has been put before us by the Government. I think it is the strongest and I believe that it will lead to more consistency in sentencing, which is in the interests of justice.
I wish to make two points only. First, I wish to support the request made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that between now and Report the Minister should look carefully at the wording of subsection (1)(a) and consider whether the words of limitation are required. I do not elaborate further at this stage.
My second observation is to regret that we are taking Amendments No. 42 and 43 as makeweights. There are real issues to discuss relating to the sentencing council proposal and the judicial studies board. Both are worth full debate and careful thought, and it is a pity they have been thrown in as part of the opposition to the new clause.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: In the 16 years that I have been privileged to be a Member of this place, I have always tried to stand up and be counted on something about which I feel strongly. I feel strongly against these amendments, principally because the prosecution service, as it is now called, at the end of a trial should not be able to go behind the judge's back and say that the judge imposed an insufficient penalty in the case. That is precisely what would happen. I am absolutely certain that that is wrong.
344
Having sat for many years both in Crown Courts and magistrates' courts, I should like to say that those who think that they know what is going on and the reasons for the sentence in all the courts of this country are wrong, because it is the judge, and the judge alone, who sees all the papers to do with every single case. When I say every single case I mean precisely that. Every case is different. Therefore every penalty must be different within the penalties correctly prescribed by Parliament.
I shall not speak for long but I wanted to say with the greatest possible humility—I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is no longer in his place—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: He is here!
Baroness Macleod of Borve:—that the people of this country trust the judges. I have had so many letters saying, "We trust the judiciary. They are the people who have been trained to judge, and who are we"—that is, the people of the country—"to say that a trained judge is incorrect?". If one were so to state, then this clause might be necessary but I do not think that it is. As I have said, it would give the Executive undue power to interfere with the judiciary and that is not what the public wants. That the accused person should be tried only once is one of the fundamental principles upon which the criminal law of this country is founded. Suspended jeopardy was mentioned, and I would agree that that might be a way of looking at it.
The third and fourth amendments that we are considering might apply to magistrates. The training is very thorough as laid down by those in authority. The training is given locally by the clerk to the various courts. However, from my experience and from the figures that the noble and learned Lord has given us today, something must be done to see that there is more discretion—that is not the word I wanted—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Consistency.
Baroness Macleod of Borve:—more consistency throughout the country. It is quite obvious that something more has to be done and we look to the judiciary to tell us what we have to do. I cannot support my noble friend in these amendments.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I may make one very short remark as a layman. It is what the layman always thinks when he hears a series of well thought out and well delivered views given by distinguished lawyers. At the end of each speech I thought, "There is a lot in what he says. I shall have to look at that tomorrow". However, at the end of the debate I stand exactly where I came in.
There are three issues which seem to me to matter. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, mentioned them all. Should the prosecutor be involved even slightly more than he is today in sentencing? I feel that he should not. Will this new amendment have an effect on the length of sentences overall? It seems to me perfectly obvious that any rule anywhere that applies limits has effects. I say no more than that. Thirdly, and by far

345
the most important issue, is not the double jeopardy but the double threat of jeopardy. This seems to me a principle that one must not forget. Our whole legal and political attitude to people who offend is that we want to catch them, try them, prove them guilty and punish them properly. I agree with all that. Having done so, many people like myself and many others in this Chamber try to help those people. The best way that we can try to help a criminal who has been sentenced is to stop him having his trial retried and being sentenced again. I shall oppose the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: It falls to my lot to try to draw the strands together of this very vital debate on behalf of the official Opposition and I hope on behalf of our friends who sit on the Alliance Benches.
Perhaps I may make two quick observations before I start on an argument, which I assure Members of the Committee will not be long drawn out. Perhaps I may glance at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and say with all due respect that it is not the custom in this Chamber to quote from lunchtime speeches that are made to a very ready ear and are sometimes misunderstood. If I recounted to noble Lords the lunchtime conversations that I have heard about certain Lords of Appeal in Ordinary I would offend Members of the Committee by so doing. There is obviously substance in quoting from a speech which is recorded in Hansard, but it is wrong that we should be influenced by anything other than that in regard to the utterances of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who has a very deep place in our affections and respect.
My second observation is this. I was deeply touched by the references made from the Government Benches to the supreme wisdom of the system of justice in Australia. I felt that in current circumstances it might have been a little overdone.
The Earl of Caithness: I was referring to criminal justice.
Lord Mishcon: I am corrected by the noble Earl, who refers me to the fact that he was dealing here with criminal justice. I am referring to the judges of Australia who sit both in civil and criminal jurisdictions.
Turning immediately to the burden of the argument before Members of the Committee, the first matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee is one that I do not think anybody has mentioned. We conducted the debate on the basis that we were dealing with only serious offences and we overlooked subsection (3) of the amendment which appears on the Marshalled List and which reads as follows:
"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".
Members of the Committee are therefore asked to pass what has been called by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, a revolutionary change—but he says that one should not mind doing something
346
even if it is revolutionary—in the whole of our system of providing justice to an accused. We are saying that this can apply not only to the serious offences with which we are dealing today but that all we have to have is an order including other sentences from time to time and this amendment will apply similarly to all those offences. Before we know where we are we may be legislating for even minor offences.
What is the history of this matter? As I understand it, the history is this. There has been disquiet that there have been lenient sentences—it is admitted that that occurs only infrequently—where justice has not been done because there has been inconsistency. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put it, inconsistency is the name of the game. That is what we are trying to deal with.
A suggestion was made in a Government White Paper—we have forgotten about that White Paper in the course of this debate—to deal with this very problem. In dealing with this problem the question of the Attorney-General and the part that prosecuting counsel or the prosecuting service would play in a revision of a lenient sentence was dealt with. I ought to remind the Committee of the considered view of the Government when they issued this White Paper in March 1986, which was only about 18 months ago. It stated:
These arrangements"—
the arrangements were the question of the counsel or prosecuting attorney telling the Attorney-General that there was a thought that too lenient a sentence had been passed—
"would inevitably require the prosecution to take a view of the sentence imposed in particular cases and to develop their own sentencing criteria against which it would be considered."
I have left out a few words that are irrelevant.
"They could affect the relationship between the Attorney-General, the prosecution and the judiciary in a way which would not contribute to public confidence or serve the interests of justice".
I am quoting from paragraph 8 of the White Paper called Criminal Justice: Plans for Legislation which was issued by the Government only 18 months ago.
I ask the Committee to forget that for a moment and to take it for granted that there have been second thoughts. All of us are entitled to second thoughts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is entitled to third and fourth thoughts, but the Government have had second thoughts. The thoughts had such a long period of gestation that they lasted between the issue of the White Paper and the very serious step of drafting a Bill for Parliament to consider. The Government took the view that they must go beyond what was said in the White Paper and that they must include Clause 38 in the Bill which came before Parliament. That clause tried to deal with the inconsistency which was the name of the game. Without creating any jeopardy, double or otherwise, for an accused person who had been convicted and sentenced the provision covered this matter. It provided that in an appropriate case, where the Attorney-General took the view that a sentence raised a question of public importance—it dealt incidentally with a trial only on indictment: it did not have that little subsection to which I referred the Committee about any other offence which could be inserted in an order—with the leave of the court the

347
matter could be referred to the Court of Appeal to obtain its opinion on the principles which should be observed in sentencing in similar cases in the future.
So the Government's second thought, having progressed, if you like, or having regressed, if you prefer, from the White Paper opinion, was to decide that this was the way in which to deal with the matter. Whether or not the Committee has views about this in relation to this clause, one thing everyone has to admit: it is miles better and more just than the amendment before the Committee. I gathered from the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that that too was his considered view. I believe, and the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong, that if this clause had been before the Committee today unamended the noble and learned Lord would have been able to give it unqualified support, whereas in regard to the present amendment, as we heard from his speech, there was qualified support. The qualified support was in line indeed with the speech he previously made and which was quoted completely accurately by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
Going to that second stage means that we are going wrong. I say with the permission of those who lead me from this Front Bench that that is a clause which we on this side of the Committee would much prefer. We think it has deficiencies, and that is why we put down our own amendments; but we much prefer it to the present amendment that is before the Committee. We do it for the reasons which have been advanced and with which I do not want to weary your Lordships' Committee by repeating at length. However, I ask the Committee to reflect for one moment on one of those arguments.
Is it too emotional to ask the Committee to consider that part of our job in our legislation on criminal law is to give an accused a chance of rehabilitation? Is it too emotional indeed to take it for granted that we are dealing with a wayward son or daughter of a Member of this Committee? I shall not talk in terms of a Member of this Committee. A sentence has been imposed upon your son or your daughter—it could happen to any one of us; it has happened to some of us—and a judge has decided that he will give a suspended sentence or a fine. We talk to that young man when he comes back from that trial. We say to him "Well, you have been very fortunate. A judge of this country has been very merciful. You can go back to your employer tomorrow (he knows of course about the trial) and you can say to him Please give me my job back. I have not been sent to prison. I have been fined. I have a suspended sentence'.".
No parent will be able to do that ever again if this amendment is passed. He will have to say: "I have been told by the lawyer who defended you that we have to wait for 28 days because the Attorney-General may take another view on the advice of prosecuting counsel, who did not look very benevolent when that sentence was passed. You cannot go back to your employer and try to start life all over again, realising the mistake you have made. At the end of 28 days you will have to look at the list if the Attorney-General has decided that this is one of
348
those cases, be it connected with drugs or whatever it is, where indeed as a matter of principle it ought to go before the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division".
It will depend on the list, the crowded list; and which will take precedence in that crowded list of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division—appeals against conviction or appeals against sentence where the sentence is deemed to be too lenient? It will not be 28 days on any view at all. It will be months. In those circumstances, what will you as parents say if you have passed this amendment giving no chance at all of certainty, which is the one method of justice that is known in our courts? You know where you stand. You have been convicted; you have been sentenced; you know where you stand. This is the negation of all that we have tried to do in that part of our system of justice which deals with sentencing and which gives a chance of rehabilitation.
In conclusion, let me give a second reason why I hope Members of the Committee will say, "No, there is a better way of doing this". We ask the Government to reconsider and to go back to their own clause. We ask indeed that there should be no vote today; or, if there is a vote, that it is either a vote against or an abstention, because there is a better clause and that clause is in the Bill.
I listened—and I say this without even a smile on my face—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who recited to us a case which has, I know, burdened his soul to such an extent that he has been good enough to recount it to us in this Chamber on four occasions. With regard to that case he was kind enough to reply to an observation that I myself made when he sat down on a previous occasion. He sentenced somebody to six months' imprisonment—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Nine months.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful. No, it was not a drunken driver, it was a negligent driver. The man was of completely good character. He had driven in a negligent fashion and unfortunately people had been killed. What would have been the noble and learned Lord's view, I wonder, if he had had looking over his shoulder the possibility of prosecuting counsel going to the Attorney-General? Quite right, said the noble and learned Lord last time when I put it to him, he might have increased that sentence. I wonder whether in the noble and learned Lord's younger days the wisdom of mercy had not occurred to him then when he reflected that the person who was before him was of completely good character. He had driven negligently. He might have gone into a lamp post and the matter then would have been dealt with by a fine. He unfortunately went into a human being, or two human beings, and the result was disastrous. Does that mean that the noble and learned Lord was not right? He sentenced the man to prison. He sentenced him to nine months in prison. I believe that the noble and learned Lord was right in that judgment. He is nodding his head and possibly on reflection he now thinks he was. Thank heavens he did not have this amendment passed in law when he administered the sentence that he did.

349
Having said that, I plead with Members of the Committee not necessarily to vote in a way which kills all hope of remedying the situation of consistency of sentence. I do not even ask noble Lords to accept the amendments that we put down if they do not find them favourable. What I ask is that the Committee should vote in such a way or that the Minister should react in such a way that we can have second thoughts about this and, at the worst, if I may put it that way, go back to the reasonable, or more reasonable, clause which is in the Bill. That does not affect the particular accused but allows the edict of the Court of Appeal to go out—because that is how it will be judged—which will see to it that in cases of that kind there is consistency of sentencing thereafter.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may respond to some of the points made in this excellent debate and to the specific proposals which have been put forward by the Opposition. I should like to deal first with double jeopardy. I entirely support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said about double jeopardy. It was wrong to say that what we are talking about is double jeopardy. What we are talking about is where an offender has already been convicted and whether the sentence should stand as the correct and proper sentence. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that he supported the idea that it was right to "punish them properly". That is what we are talking about.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Grimond, have argued that it would be intolerably harsh for the recipient of, for instance, a non-custodial sentence to have a custodial sentence substituted some months later. I agree that it is possible to imagine cases in which it was very hard on the offender. We have sought to avoid there being a protracted period of uncertainty about whether the original sentence will stand by imposing a 28 day time limit on the Attorney-General, and every effort will he made to arrange the hearings of these cases as early as possible. But we must not forget that it is the function of the courts to dispense justice. The Court of Appeal would not substitute a sentence which in all the circumstances seemed unjust in a case which commanded real sympathy. Nor is it likely that the Attorney-General would refer such a case in the first place.
It was argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that the existence of the new procedure for sentences to be referred to the Court of Appeal will cause the judges to pass more severe sentences than they otherwise would to avoid the risk of being overturned by the Court of Appeal. I do not believe that that would be the case and it is certainly no part of my right honourable friend's purpose. Judges are strong-minded people and are accustomed from time to time to having their sentences overturned after an appeal by the defendant. As I have said, we do not expect that there will be more than a dozen or so references
350
each year, so I think it is unlikely that their impact on general sentencing practices will be as the noble and learned Lord fears.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, suggested—and a point was raised by my noble friend Lord Windlesham—that subsection (1)(a) of the second new clause was not quite right. He thought the words "unduly lenient" should be omitted. The clause is drafted as it is because we thought it necessary to spell out the two possible types of case in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). We are talking about errors in law as well as a wrongly exercised discretion. We thought that if we did not say that expressly it might be thought that legal errors were not covered but, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, and his doubts, I shall gladly look again at the drafting of that part of the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has quoted extensively from previous debates. His points have been well answered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who confirmed that in his view the role of the Attorney-General was not compromised by this clause. I was sad that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, thought that the old Commonwealth had inferior jurisdictions. It was perhaps a telling point that he also linked his thoughts on inferior jurisdictions to the point we were discussing a week ago on extradition.
The noble Lord, and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Grimond, said that our proposals were an overhasty reaction to the tabloid press. That is absolute nonsense. I could not accept that accusation for a minute. This problem has gone on for some time, as I said when I proposed that amendment. It is the very reason that we still have that problem—that there is the lurking suspicion—
that we have come back to this matter yet again.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the trial judge was better equipped than the Court of Appeal to enact a sentence. Surely in that case there would be no need for appeal for reduction of sentence, of which he then mentioned some examples. However, I think that that point was dealt with better by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, than I can deal with it at the moment.
I was quite pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seemed to have moved towards the government position as it was on Clause 38, but I must remind the Committee that he did not like it at Second Reading. He was very much part of the strong armoury on the other side in whose crossfire I was caught. I have no doubt that if we were still on Clause 38 he would be one of its strongest opponents.
Lord Mishcon: With his usual courtesy, the noble Earl has sat down to enable me to intervene. I made it perfectly clear in my speech, however ineffectual that speech might be, that Clause 38 was in fact an improvement by far on this amendment, and I hoped that that was the compromise that the noble Earl was about to accept. What I say quite definitely is that the Government have not yet explained—and no doubt the noble Earl will now do so—why they changed their mind about Clause 38.
The Earl of Caithness: I hoped I had made clear in my opening speech on this matter the reasons why we in Government changed our mind. I think it would be wrong for the Committee if I went back on that.
Lord Mishcon: Could the noble Earl summarise it?
The Earl of Caithness: It is clearly on the official record, and I hope that that is the right way of dealing with that particular point.
A theme which has run through the speeches of Members who have argued against our proposals is that the encouragement of good sentencing practice is best left to general guidance, and several noble Lords have referred to the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal. Perhaps I may say first that neither my right honourable friend nor I would dissent for a moment from the proposition that the guidance given by the Court of Appeal is the key to good sentencing practice. We have greatly welcomed the willingness of the court, under the leadership of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, to extend and develop its previous practice. There are now, as a result, authoritative guideline judgments on a wide range of sentencing questions, from the appropriate penalties for particular types of offences to such matters as the use of the partly suspended sentence.
At the same time, the Judicial Studies Board has greatly extended its role in providing information and training for the judiciary, including information about sentencing guidelines. At the request of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, the board has prepared a handbook of guideline judgments and has taken upon itself the task of distributing the handbook to the judiciary and keeping it up to date, but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, that is not enough, and that is one of the reasons for this amendment.
The question we had to address was whether that process of improving the judiciary's knowledge of, and access to, the Court of Appeal's guidance—to which, as will be clear from what I have said, the Judicial Studies Board has contributed greatly—would be assisted if the board's role were put on a statutory footing. We concluded that it would not, for three reasons.
The first was that the board is appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and we feared that giving it any statutory role in sentencing might unhelpfully blur the distinction between executive and judiciary. The second was that, as I have said, a great deal was already being done without the need for statutory provision. And the third was that, important as the Judicial Studies Board's role was, putting it on a statutory footing would not have addressed directly the problem of over-lenient sentences. As time has moved on, we have become convinced that the more direct approach is right and necessary.
That does not, however, mean that we have ruled out the idea of giving the Judicial Studies Board statutory form. But if we decided to do so it would be to recognise its general training role and not to focus specifically on sentencing guidance, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice explained was its
352
present role. Incidentally, I was surprised to see that the amendment would restrict the membership of the Judicial Studies Board to judges of the High Court or Crown Court. As now constituted, the board includes in addition to a number of distinguished judges a leading academic authority on sentencing, a lay magistrate, and senior officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Given the extent of the board's responsibilities I should have expected the movers of this amendment to regard some element of lay representation as desirable, as they do for their proposed sentencing council.
Amendment No. 42 raises a more radical possibility—that there might be a sentencing council under the chairmanship of the Lord Chief Justice, with membership which went beyond the senior judiciary. This is an idea which (as several noble and noble and learned Lords have noted) was first floated by the distinguished academic lawyer, Dr. Andrew Ashworth, several years ago. The argument, as I understand it, is that the policy to be followed by the courts in relation to sentencing touches on such a wide range of social concerns that it would benefit from the attention of a more broadly based group of people. I can see the attractions of that argument, but the idea of a Sentencing Council raises immensely difficult issues about the respective roles of the council and the judiciary, the sanctity of which we heard so much about from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Would, for instance, the council supplant the Court of Appeal in its policy making if not its appellate role? Presumably it would.
The sentencing council idea is an interesting one, but I could not encourage noble Lords opposite to think that the time is ripe for its acceptance by the Government. Nor does it really meet the concern about lenient sentences to which the Government's amendments are addressed. With great respect to noble Lords opposite, it seems to me that the division in this debate is between those who believe that that concern should be addressed directly, and those who may have ideas, such as the sentencing council, which they would like to promote but who otherwise do not wish to address the problem of lenient sentences directly.
I conclude, as I began, as a layman, albeit fortified by the powerful support we have heard today from the senior judicial figures who have contributed to our debate—the speeches of the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Ackner, Lord Denning, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. With great respect to those who have spoken against our proposal, it does not seem to me that they have sustained their central charge that it would itself do damage to the confidence in our system.
We are all human, and with the best will in the world mistakes occur. Judges can be reversed now when the defence appeals successfully against sentence. The fact that they can be reversed is evidence of the strength of our judicial system, not a reason for losing confidence. The far greater risk is that confidence will seep away every time the irreversibility of a waywardly lenient sentence impinges on the public consciousness.

353
Confidence in the judiciary is a precious thing. We have, I believe, found an equitable and acceptable means of allowing the occasional wayward sentence to be corrected. These clauses and the new schedule are the vehicle for doing so, and I strongly commend them to the Committee.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 151; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Auckland, L.

Hertford, M.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hives, L.

Beloff, L.

Holderness, L.

Belstead, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Benson, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Borthwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterworth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Caccia, L.

Lane, L.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Alloway. L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lothian, M.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lurgan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cox, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denning, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mersey, V.

Donegall, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dormer, L.

Monson, L.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pender, L.

Forester, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grantchester, L.

Reigate, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Richardson, L.

354

Rollo, L.

Suffield, L.

Romney, E.

Terrington, L.

Roskill, L.

Teviot, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teynham, L.

Salisbury, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Torphichen, L.

Sandford, L.

Torrington, V.

Seebohm, L.

Trafford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Tranmire, L.'

Shannon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sharples, B.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Somers, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Stockton, E.

Windlesham, L.

Strange, B.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Basnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Meston, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dowding, L.

Raglan, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Galpern, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gifford, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walston, L.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
("Questions as to sentencing
.—(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; and

(b) that the case is one to which this Part of this Act applies,

he may, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, refer the case to them for them to review the sentencing of that person; and on such a reference the Court of Appeal may—

(i) quash any sentence passed on him in the proceeding; and

(ii) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the court below had power to pass when dealing with him.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.)
(3)No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.
(4)Where the Court of Appeal have concluded their review of a case referred to them under this section the Attorney-General or the person to whose sentencing the reference relates may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on that person in the proceeding to the House of Lords for their opinion, and the House shall consider the point and give their opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or deal with it themselves; and section 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (composition of House for appeals) shall apply also in relation to any proceedings of the House under this section.
(5)A reference under subsection (4) above shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords: and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by that House.
(6)For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section the House of Lords may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.
(7)The supplementary provisions contained in Schedule (Questions as to sentencing—supplementary) to this Act shall have effect.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved. ]
Clause 32 [Certain either way offences relating to motor vehicles to be summary offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like briefly to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions concerning Clause 32. Now that the offences of common assault, driving while disqualified and taking a vehicle without the owner's consent are to be dealt with by summary trial, will the defendant still be able to appeal to the Crown Court? Also may I be assured that any expenditure which will be incurred, instead of being taken to the Crown Court will be given to the local authority who have charge of expenditure in the magistrates' court?
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: We have become broadly accustomed over the years to government proposals
356
to raise maximum sentences by fairly modest percentages: from five to seven years, say; from seven to 10 years; from 10 to 14 years; and from 14 years to life. A good deal less often, the maximum sentences have been reduced but again by fairly modest amounts. Even where alterations in maximum sentences are modest, as up till now they generally have been, they have often been fiercely contested in Parliament.
In this Bill we see, in contrast to the usual pattern, some extremely steep increases proposed—three and a half times the existing maximum in one or two cases and in one instance five times the existing maximum. As well as this we see some extremely sharp decreases proposed, ranging to over 83 per cent. This is why I have tabled a number of essentially probing amendments to try to establish the reason which has led the Government to propose such drastic changes, whether up or down. Are their proposals always well considered and thoroughly thought out or could they be a combination of money-saving exercises? Also, could they occasionally stem from snap decisions resulting from transient populist pressures, which are never an ideal basis for legislation? Clauses 32 and 33 would appear to be motivated by an otherwise commendable desire to save money—central government money, that is—as the burden (admittedly a lower burden overall) will be shifted from central to local government.
This transfer to the jurisdiction of a magistrates' court means that a lower maximum sentence must of necessity apply to offences which most people in this country consider to be fairly serious ones. In this I suggest that the majority of people have a good deal of logic on their side. In nearly every other country in the world that I can think of, car theft is car theft is car theft. Whether the thief intends to deprive the owner permanently of the use of his vehicle is neither here nor there. Frankly, this makes sense because not only is the owner enormously inconvenienced, to say nothing of being distressed, by being deprived of his or her motor car: he or she will almost certainly have to spend a good deal of money on fares and car hire. to say nothing of forfeiting the no claims bonus, and, even if there is no visible damage to the car in question, the resale value is likely to drop extremely sharply. This is because few prospective purchasers will touch a car which is known to have been stolen, even for a short time, for fear of the terrible treatment that is likely to have been meted out to the engine and transmission while in the hands of a thief. So the owner stands to lose far more than may at first seem probable, and for that reason the offence is far from being a trivial one. Certainly a reduction in the maximum sentence applicable from three years to six months seems excessive.
Nor is driving while disqualified, which is dealt with in subsection (2), a trivial offence. Apart from other considerations, a disqualified driver is an uninsured driver and although latterly compensation schemes have come into being all other motorists and indeed motor cyclists must pay for these by way of much higher insurance premiums. In addition, all road users and not only motorists and motor cyclists but pedal cyclists and pedestrians are likely to be at extra risk by virtue of the fact that a disqualified

357
driver, almost by definition, is a menace to life and limb.
The reduction in the maximum sentence proposed is only 50 per cent. compared with the 83⅓ per cent. reduction for the offences covered in subsection (1). One nevertheless wonders whether a reduction even of this lesser magnitude is wise. For the first offender six months is obviously more than adequate, but for repeated offenders it may not be a sufficient deterrent. I should say that the RAC agree with me in their unhappiness about this clause, although they do not at present go quite as far as opposing it altogether. They are nonetheless not entirely happy with the proposals. I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee on these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I support the Bill as it is drafted. I want to take only one very short point. The noble Lord says that theft is theft is theft in any system of law; but that is precisely the distinction which gives rise to the concept underlying Clause 32 that it is not theft. It is taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority: and it is merely because it is not theft and there is no dishonest intent to deprive the owner permanently of it that it is relegated to trial in the magistrates' court. Although in due course I would be opposing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Elton, I am very supportive of the concept that someone charged with theft should have the right to trial by jury. I think the distinction here is such that the two clauses as drafted are wholly to be supported.
Lord Renton: I feel that the clause is right for dealing with these cases when they are first offences but if a person gets into the habit of taking motor cars without the consent of the owners and is convicted more than once I think there should be the possibility of trial by indictment. I must confess I have not checked this through to see what would happen for subsequent offences and if my noble friend Lord Caithness can enlighten me on that point I shall be very grateful.
Lord Denning: I should like to support the clauses as they stand. I think the jurisdiction of the magistrates is a first-rate jurisdiction and should not be held up by requests from the accused for trial by jury or the like. In other words, I should like to see—this comes under a subsequent clause to be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Elton—the magistrates given the best jurisdiction that is possible and I would support the clauses entirely.
The Earl of Caithness: The purpose of Clause 32 and of the two clauses that follow it is to make certain offences triable only in the magistrates' court which are at present triable either way: that is, either by the magistrates or in the Crown Court. Clause 32 refers to two such offences: taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority (or taking and driving away, as it is commonly known) and driving while disqualified. Clause 33, which I shall deal with in more detail shortly, covers criminal damage of a value between £400 and £2,000. Clause 34 covers common assault.
358
These clauses also have the effect of removing the higher penalties presently available in respect of the offences when they are tried in the Crown Court. Your Lordships will know that offences are divided into three categories according to how they may be tried. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will recall very clearly indeed, I am sure, this tripartite structure was recommended by the James Committee in 1975 and introduced by the Criminal Law Act 1977. The most serious offences, such as murder, rape and robbery, may only be tried on indictment by the Crown Court. The least serious, which represent the vast majority of the courts' caseload, may only be tried summarily by magistrates. Those of intermediate gravity may be tried either way, and either the magistrates or the defendant may insist on Crown Court trial. Since the maximum sentence available to the magistrates' court for any offence is six months' imprisonment, the system ensures defendants a right to jury trial for many offences which make them liable to more than six months' imprisonment.
The tripartite structure has served us well and the proposals in the Bill in no way depart from it. But the Government have thought it right, in the light of the greatly increased pressure on the courts and the prisons, and in the light of experience, to consider whether some offences could be removed altogether from the Crown Court. These are offences which are not intrinsically serious enough to warrant the complexities and expense of Crown Court trial and which only rarely result in a penalty above the magistrates' sentencing powers. The Government believe that for these offences the interests of justice are best served by the relatively speedy and economical despatch of cases by the magistrates.
I should say that nevertheless the Government did not embark on these changes lightly. The removal of jury trial is a sensitive issue, and rightly so. We therefore first canvassed opinion in a discussion paper issued last year with the Criminal Justice White Paper. The high level of support our proposals received from the major criminal justice practitioner bodies was most encouraging, and confirmed our belief that this would be a worthwhile measure to improve the capacity of the criminal justice system to deal fairly and promptly with those charged. We estimate that the changes proposed in Clauses 32–34 will reduce the Crown Court caseload by around 5 per cent. and the daily prison population by perhaps 300.
I now turn to the particular offences dealt with by Clause 32. The first is taking a motor vehicle without authority. The current maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is three years' imprisonment and/or a fine of any amount. The Government propose that the maximum penalty on summary conviction should be six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of level 5 on the standard scale—this is currently £2,000. No one can deny that people who drive off in other people's cars, often so-called joy-riders, are a downright nuisance, and the offence is regrettably all too common. But is the intrinsic gravity sufficient to warrant jury trial and quite lengthy periods of imprisonment? The courts appear to think not, because sentences of more than

359
six months are awarded in only about 3 per cent. of cases. The offence falls short of theft because it does not require dishonest intent. If theft were proved, of course, higher penalties would be available. And it is generally young people—sometimes very young people—who commit the offence. The courts will therefore be slow to impose the harshest penalties.
Finally on this point, I should say that Clause 32 preserves the availability of the alternative finding of guilt of unauthorised taking where the original charge was theft. A person convicted in the Crown Court on this basis will be liable to the same penalties as if he had been convicted in the magistrates' court.
The second offence in Clause 32 is driving while disqualified. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is 12 months' imprisonment and½or an unlimited fine. The Government propose that on summary conviction the maximum penalty should be six months' imprisonment and½or a fine of level 5 [£2,000]. Driving while disqualified is a serious matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said. It involves wilful disregard of an order of the court. The James Committee concluded on balance that it should be triable either way. But since then we have seen the great majority of cases dealt with by the magistrates and within magistrates' sentencing powers. In only about 2 per cent. of cases is a sentence passed of more than six months' imprisonment. The Government therefore believe in the light of experience that it is safe and desirable to entrust all such cases to the magistrates' court. Also, I can assure my noble friend Lady Macleod that someone convicted in the magistrates' court of one of the reclassified offences would have a right of appeal to the Crown Court, and such appeals are heard by the Crown Court judge sitting with several magistrates.
With regard to the question of extra resources I can tell my noble friend that the magistrates' court would, under our proposals, hear some 5,000 additional cases per year. The effect would be offset to a limited extent by a corresponding decrease in the number of committal proceedings. That is certainly a net increase in workload. Of course it would be spread across the country and we expect that it would be absorbed to some extent within existing resources. We are talking about a system which processes well over 400,000 indictable offence cases a year and itself tries some three-quarters of them. But your Lordships will know that central government meets 80 per cent. of the cost of magistrates' courts by specific grant and therefore bears the lion's share of the cost of any increase in business. Any additional cost falling on local authorities should therefore be very small.
I can say to my noble friend Lord Renton that it is not intended that second or subsequent offences should be triable either way, having learnt from the experience gained since the 1977 Act. Given the facts that I have related to him, I hope that he will be able to agree that Clause 32 as set out in the Bill is the right clause. I would therefore propose that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Now that that elementary matter has been clarified perhaps we may continue. With regard to the proposal as to offences relating to vehicles and the particular offence in Clause 32 of driving whilst disqualified or taking a motor vehicle without authority, I believe that the James Committee, to which the noble Earl referred, did take the view that driving while disqualified was a serious disregard of a court order and therefore warranted trial by jury. I think that was the view that they formed, so that there is some substance, if he will not mind my saying so, in the noble Lord's proposals.
However, I am very conscious of the enormous burden that is now placed upon the Crown Courts and I would venture to think that in regard to this matter it might be appropriate to leave it to the magistrates' courts.
On the other hand, representations have been made that the offence of taking a motor vehicle without authority, as the Government's own discussion paper points out, is often committed by young offenders and that a conviction can have a very serious effect on their job prospects. But there it is. The arguments are not all on one side, and I thought it was worth at any rate ventilating some thoughts the other way.
Lord Roskill: May I say a word in support of Clause 32 as it stands? Speaking on this occasion perhaps as an ex-chairman of quarter sessions and an ex-magistrate, there is no reason on earth why magistrates should not try these cases. They are perfectly straightforward. One point which I suggest has been overlooked by those who oppose this is as follows. The desire to go for trial (which used to waste so much time at quarter sessions and does still waste so much time at the Crown Court) is to postpone the inevitable disqualification which must follow. The longer one can hold up and delay, the longer people will go on opting for trial by jury when they can. I always regretted, if I may say so, with all respect to the late Lord Justice James—and I said so to him at the time—that they had made the recommendation in the form they did. Now is the chance to put it right.
Lord Wigoder: May I simply say on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches that we welcome the proposals that the offences set out in Clauses 32, 33 and 34 be made summary offences?
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may briefly take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He pointed out that in this country a distinction is made between taking a motor vehicle without consent—without authority—and car theft. That I entirely appreciate. I was well aware of that. The point I was trying to make was that in most countries, as far as I know, that fine distinction is not made, for better or for worse.
I was grateful for the very thorough explanation by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, of the reason for the Government's move in this matter, and the statistics that he gave about the proportion of cases in which a sentence of over six months' imprisonment was actually used are certainly interesting. To some extent, though not entirely, that calms my disquiet.

361
But both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and he, as I understood, implied that somebody who takes somebody else's car for a day, a week or a month and drives it, and almost certainly does a considerable amount of damage to it before abandoning it, has no dishonest intent. If that behaviour is not dishonest, I do not know what dishonesty is. But be that as it may, as I have had no support in the Committee I shall not press my opposition any further.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Criminal damage etc. as summary offences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: Clause 33 seeks to raise the minimum amount of criminal damage, measured in terms of monetary value, below which the offence is triable only summarily with a maximum possible prison sentence of no more than six months. The clause does not seek to raise the minimum figure merely in line with inflation. None of us, I think, would quarrel with that. Instead it raises it very substantially in real terms.
The original limit was £200 and this was certainly the case in mid-1980 when the Act referred to in the Bill was passed. Subsequently the limit was raised to £400. This was above the rise in inflation but not excessively so. Now a limit of £2,000 is proposed. The retail price index has risen by between 55 and 60 per cent. since mid-1980, so if the minimum had simply been indexed it would now be set between £310 and £320. Instead the Government are proposing a minimum almost six-and-a-half times as great.
One appreciates the Government's desire both to reduce public expenditure generally and to reduce the prison population specifically. However, there is another side to the coin. I ask the Committee to consider the case of a householder, albeit a foolish householder, who leaves his front door open while he nips out to the corner shop. Someone passing by happens to notice that the door is ajar and sneaks in, there being no question of breaking and entering, with a view to nicking whatever he can and stuffing it in his coat pockets. In his frustration at finding nothing of value, he does the most terrible things to carpets, furniture, china, pictures and the clothing of the householder and his family and in the process £1,999 worth of damage is caused.
The deed is perpetrated by a man of straw so no compensation will be forthcoming to the unhappy householder or his family. Furthermore, the householder is a poor man who cannot afford the high household contents insurance premiums now payable in London and other large cities. So in addition to the shock at the desecration of his house, he is almost £2,000 out of pocket. The perpetrator can be sent to prison for no more than six months, but if he had smashed one extra saucer, bringing the total damage caused up to £2,001, he could theoretically go to prison for 10 years.
Something almost as upsetting could happen even if this householder of modest means had not been
362
careless. He could, for example, have his five year-old car parked outside his house, correctly locked and with the windows wound up. Along comes a gang of football hooligans who are furious because their team has been badly beaten. They take it out on the householder's car, almost smashing it to pieces in the process, and again causing just under £2,000 worth of damage. The householder in question has only been able to afford to insure the car for third party, fire and theft, so that once again he stands to loose £2,000 with very little realistic hope of compensation in most cases. We know that there are some affluent football hooligans—a recent case has come to mind—but most of them are not.
Again the perpetrators could be sent to prison for no more than six months, although if they had been foolish enough to use the same degree of force upon a fully insured Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, Maserati or Jaguar—all of them much more expensive to repair than the first householder's ancient Ford or Renault—they too could theoretically go down for 10 years. One cannot help feeling that the £2,000 limit is at least twice as high as it should be and I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee on this.
The Earl of Caithness: The purpose of Clause 33 is to make offences of criminal damage to a value between £400 and £2,000 triable only summarily in the magistrates' court. Under the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (Section 17 and Schedule 1) the offence of criminal damage is triable either way. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment is 10 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. But Section 22 of the 1980 Act makes this offence triable only summarily where the value involved is less than £400. The maximum penalty in such a case is three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of level 4 on the standard scale. That is currently £1,000. We propose that these should henceforth be the maximum penalties for offences up to the higher threshold of £2,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly said that where more than one offence is charged it is the aggregate value which is decisive. So several offences totalling less than £2,000 would be triable only summarily. Wherever one draws the line, whether it be £400 or £2,000, one can use the argument that the noble Lord used. One has to draw the line somewhere and I shall come onto the reasons why we have drawn it at £2,000.
This change was not canvassed in the discussion paper which I mentioned earlier but was suggested in response to that paper by practitioners. I might cite in aid the Magistrates' Association and the Law Society. It seemed to us an entirely sensible and desirable course. It excludes the most serious forms of criminal damage. Arson and criminal damage intentionally or recklessly endangering life are both triable only on indictment and attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, irrespective of the value of the property involved.
The courts already have experience of operating a financial cut-off point through the existing £ 400 threshold. I understand it has not proved difficult to operate. We believe that the penalties available on summary conviction should be sufficient for higher value offences of up to £2,000. The sum of £2,000

363
seemed to us a sensible cut-off because it represents the upper limit of magistrates' power to award compensation, which of course would often be appropriate in criminal damage cases. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will allow Clause 33 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Earl that any limit that is set is of necessity an arbitrary one. There will be this curious anomaly whereby if damage is £1 over the top the maximum sentence of imprisonment rises 20–fold. That is a problem which we are always going to get. all I am arguing is that in this instance the limit appears to be too high. I am sure the noble Earl will agree that it has risen way above the rate of inflation. In the course of his answer, he has corrected some figures of mine. It is a little difficult when several Acts are referred to to find out exactly when the £200 limit became £400, but certainly the £ 2,000 limit is well above the rate of inflation.
The other point I should like to make is that to the aggrieved householder, that I am talking about, or any other householder, criminal damage is as traumatic as theft. Theft of property of the same amount would cause no less distress and no more distress either. It might actually be more unpleasant to find £2,000 worth of your goods smashed than to have them stolen. But there it is. I do not seem to have had much support on this, and certainly at this stage I do not intend to go any further.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 43A:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Petty theft to be summary offence.
. Theft, where the value of property alleged to have been stolen does not exceed £100, shall be a summary offence and a person convicted of such an offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a short clause which would convert petty theft to a summary offence only. I do not pretend that the amendment is so tightly drawn that it could appear on the statute book as it now appears on the Marshalled List. But it is amply clear enough to allow the Committee to address an issue which I believe is central to the future efficiency and humanity of our law enforcement system.
The Committee does not need me to remind it of the crowding in Her Majesty's prisons. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has already done that with great eloquence earlier this evening. Nor does the Committee need me to remind it of the present congestion in the Crown Courts which has been a subject of frequent reference.
However I can usefully remind the Committee of the fact that prisoners are not a uniform mass of identical individuals. They are of course just as different among themselves as noble Lords. But more to the point for this evening, not all of them are convicts at all. A large and growing proportion of them are remanded for trial. For the sake of simplicity I shall illustrate that statement by giving
364
figures for remand prisoners that include a handful, but only a handful, of prisoners who have been convicted but who remain on remand awaiting sentence.
In 1979 there were, on average, 6,132 remand prisoners in the system. In 1986—last year—that average had increased by over 50 per cent. to 10,003. For this year in the months of January to June it stood at 11,655. A growth from just over 6,000 to just over 11,500 would be of great concern on its own, but it is more striking even than that because, while the 1979 figure amounted to only 14 per cent. of the total prison population, this year's figure amounts to 22 per cent. In other words, the total number of remand prisoners rose by about 63 per cent. from 1979 to 1986 and by almost 90 per cent. to the September figure this year. It now stands at over one-fifth of the whole prison population. Nor is that the end of it. Current projections suggest a remand population of about 15,000 in 1995, which is only eight years from now.
Even those figures do not give the full picture because remand prisoners must be detained separately from convicted prisoners. They are very properly presumed innocent by the law until they are proved guilty under the law. The Committee would not wish that otherwise and nor would I. However, as innocent citizens, albeit detained under the law, they rate privileges which may sound small but which are exceedingly demanding on staff and resources and which divert those staff and resources from paying attention to the majority of prisoners who are serving sentences after conviction.
There are a number of those privileges relating to visits and to sending in of food to which I cannot allocate a monetary figure nor a figure in man hours, although both would be considerable. The one with which the Committee is familiar is the duty on the prison service to produce a remand prisoner in court from time to time for further remand. He is produced because the court may decide to release him. At every appearance he must therefore be prepared for such a release. He must have all his personal belongings produced ready for return to him. He must be escorted to court. He must be kept secure until he is called for and he must then be returned to custody, perhaps in another prison altogether, with all the rigmarole of admission to be repeated.
That process averages out at a cost of £125 per production. I believe I am right in saying that the cost of keeping an average prisoner on remand is greater by 25 to 30 per cent. than that of keeping the average convicted prisoner. We are talking about very large sums of money which could be spent on the convicted population if it were not needed for this purpose. Is the Committee surprised therefore that an old prison Minister finds this area of overload of such compelling interest?
At this point I break the thread of my argument to ask the Committee not to conduct this discussion in the immediate context of the dispute going on, which is threatening to turn into industrial action on a wider scale between the Prison Officers Association of Wandsworth and the prison department of the Home Office. I share all the regret and despair of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he referred to

365
this matter in Question Time the other day. I really am saddened by the prospect of the whole honourable movement of the Prison Officers Association getting bolted away with by this runaway horse.
Reverting to my argument, I would say that one thing that contributes to this anomaly—again I am saying nothing new—is the sheer length of time it takes to get a case to court. Quite often of couse that is due to the prisoner and his lawyer themselves. Prisoners like the expensive privileges of remand, and courts count time spent on remand when setting sentence. A prisoner who expects to be found guilty is therefore in no hurry to stand trial.
However, a great deal more delay springs from the overloading of the Crown Court in particular. The average waiting time in Crown Court custody cases was 9.6 weeks in 1981 to 1982 and 10.3 weeks in 1986 to 1987. What seized my attention over this delay was the composition of the work load with which the Crown Court is struggling. Some time last year the Home Office published in a small booklet a report called The Distribution of Business between the Crown Court and Magistrates' Courts. In it I read that the case load in the Crown Court increased by no less than 48 per cent. between 1979 and 1984. The Government had responded by increasing the number of circuit judges from 307 to 361 and the number of recorders from 412 to 432. But still the waiting time had inexorably risen and still the numbers on remand had inexorably grown.
In paragraph 21 of the report I read that what was then a recent survey in London suggested that:
"cases of theft and handling of goods worth less than £50 constitute 10 per cent. of the Crown Court's caseload and 8.8 per cent. of court time".
I end the quotation there for brevity. The report is now 12 months or so old. The cutoff point which corresponds to the £50 of that date—in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said a moment ago about inflation—is roughly £100 now, because if one substituted £100 for the £50 one would still arrive at a 10 per cent. figure for the proportion of the case load in the Crown Court.
I ask the Committee to consider whether the price we pay for involving a jury in such cases is not too steep, even in civil liberties terms. Trial by jury for one man means imprisonment, with communal sleeping in a cell containing two, three or more other men and three, four or more chamber pots and their contents for 10 weeks for a great many others. It was for that reason that I decided to ask the Committee to consider very carefully whether it believed that all the apparatus of the Crown Court and trial by jury was necessary for the trial of cases of really petty theft.
Let me remind the Committee that we are not talking about anything to do with violence; that would be robbery. We are not talking of anything to do with breaking and entering; that would be burglary. Nor, as the amendment is drawn, are we talking about sending people to prison without a jury trial. This is a simple offence where the only damage is the removal of property of what is now fairly modest value. I would be happy to consider reducing
366
that threshold of £100 to £50 if the Committee so advised.
I submit that the appropriate response to that is a fine and not imprisonment. I exclude imprisonment for two reasons: first, because I believe that for nonviolent cases involving small amounts it would he inappropriate in any circumstances, let alone those of today; and, secondly, because I recognise the real fear that some Members of the Committee have of the stigma which conviction for an imprisonable offence can have upon some classes of offender who might be acquitted by a jury more easily than by a magistrate. Such persons could, of course, appeal against conviction and obtain a retrial in the Crown Court in the circumstances that my noble friend described a moment ago in a reply to my noble friend Baroness Macleod of Borve and then to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Notwithstanding that possibility of retrial, I felt it right not to include imprisonment as an appropriate response to this class of offence.
I have said enough. My principal object in tabling the amendment was to hear the views of other Members of the Committee and, more important, to have them on the record for Her Majesty's Government to consider. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I wish to say a word in favour of the amendment not only on the grounds that my noble friend Lord Elton has put—namely, that the Crown Court is overloaded with trivial cases and there is a long waiting list for trial with the many remands involved—but because in many cases the right to trial by jury is being abused, whether the offence alleged is shoplifting, petty theft of £10 or £15, or whatever it may be. The evidence may be reasonably clear against the accused and in practice he ought to plead guilty and be dealt with by the magistrates on that footing. As a matter of tactics, however, he says, through his defence lawyer, "I want to go for trial by jury. That will stave it off maybe for 18 months before it can get to the crown court. What's more, I can get legal aid and my lawyers will defend me then. It may take a day or two, I know I shall be convicted at the end; but I have a chance of getting off." Therefore, it is often a matter of legal tactics by defence lawyers in trivial cases to go to trial by jury.
When it is a matter of practical politics and doing justice, the case should be dealt with by the magistrates. They can deal with it perfectly fairly. As most Members of the Committee will know, our magistrates are first rate. Three of them will have regard to the burden of proof as well as anybody can. They will not convict the accused unless the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Many such trivial cases—I call them "trivial", but they are important to the individual—can be dealt with perfectly fairly and justly by magistrates in the way proposed in the clause rather than embarking upon the procedure of remand and crown court with the delay and expense that that causes. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I understand my noble friend's argument, which is undoubtedly valid in the case of a single offence of a relatively trivial kind. However, as I read the amendment, it does not deal with the case—and such cases are all too

367
frequent—of the habitual criminal in respect of whom this may be not the first charge but the third or the tenth. To go on trying regular petty thieves for a summary offence in this way with no possibility of imprisonment is to be extraordinarily ineffective. It is true that if convicted they will pay the fine. If they are making a regular living out of petty thieving, as I am sorry to say that such people are in some cities, they will look upon the fine merely as a kind of taxation. Indeed, it will probably turn out to be at a lower rate than the rates of income tax on legitimately earned salaries. Therefore, I am bound to say that I am not at all happy about the amendment as it stands.
Nor did my noble friend make clear how he intends to handle the case in which half a dozen charges are brought at the same time, as sometimes happens in respect of petty thieves. As I understand it, each offence is a separate one. If there were half a dozen charges therefore it would remain a matter to be dealt with summarily and without the possibility of imposing a sentence of imprisonment. It may be that my noble friend has an answer to these doubts. So far he has not deployed it. At present my doubts remain.
Lord Elton: As we are in Committee my noble friend would expect me to reply to the doubts after they are expressed rather than before. I have moved the amendment to allow Members of the Committee to discuss the proposal. The principal proposal is to relieve the system of no less than one-tenth of the burden. It is far greater than anything in Clauses 32 and 33—possibly twice as much as the two together. That being so, my noble friend may like to consider whether, if the amendment were changed so that it embraced the first offence only, he would find it more acceptable. We are at the first stage only of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Elton on the broad theme that he has put before the Committee. However, I should like to make two points. First, we are depriving a large number of people of what was regarded as an ancient and fundamental right of trial by jury on such a serious matter as the allegation of theft. Within our society even petty pilfering has been regarded as so antisocial as to incur general displeasure. In the past, rather than having a wanton conviction by a bench of magistrates who might be inexperienced amateurs, it was right to accord the right to trial by jury; but those days have gone. As my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has pointed out, the magistrates of today are trained people. A tremendous amount of care is taken, and they are well advised. They are expected to achieve—and indeed do achieve—a high standard of justice, which in the case of relatively small thefts enables us to withdraw the right to trial by jury. On that point I do not think that we need have any fears.
I go along with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when it comes to the question of subsequent offences or a number of offences charged on the same occasion and bringing the total well above the £100 referred to by my noble friend. When the opinions of noble Lords on the broad principle have been gathered, I should have thought the right
368
course for my noble friend Lord Elton would be to ask the Government whether they would accept the general principle, but on Report allow consideration of another amendment to deal with subsequent offences. In passing, I venture to say that in any event level 4 of the standard scale is a bit lower than we need to make it even in the case of a fine only. Level 5 as mentioned in Clauses 33 and 34 seems to be nearer the mark.
Lord Wigoder: I wish to say at once that I am full of admiration for the work that magistrates do. They try cases with great skill, competence, courtesy and common sense. Nothing that I say in opposing the amendment is intended to detract from that in any way.
I want to put two arguments against the amendment, one a theoretical one and one a purely practical one. The issue of principle is this. An allegation of dishonesty, however petty it may be, can be a very serious allegation for the individual concerned. I give a simple example. Of all the clients that I ever defended, I think that the one reduced to the biggest mass of hysterical jelly during the time that the jury was out considering its verdict was a senior police officer who had been charged with shoplifting something worth 3s 6d from Gamages. He was tried by jury. I do not think the question arises as to the competence of the magistrates to try that case. Of course they could have tried it with equal competence and I have no doubt they would have acquitted him just as the jury did.
The fact remains that where there is an issue of this sort which will reflect upon a man's reputation for the rest of his life, not only is he entitled to trial by his fellow citizens but society is entitled to see that that happens. I say that for the very simple reason that if a man is acquitted or convicted before the magistrates he can go away and make whatever comments he likes, particularly if he has been convicted. He will tell his neighbours, "Well, two of them were not of my political views; one of them is not of my social class. I have seen that bench before and they know the policeman who gave evidence. They see him regularly and of course they trust him". The neighbours will all say, "Poor Mr. So and So, how unlucky you were to have been convicted".
If a man in that situation is tried and convicted by a sample choice of 12 of his fellow citizens that argument is not available to him. That acquittal or conviction is final. He knows it and the community as a whole knows it. For that reason, as a matter of principle, it would be wrong to deprive anyone charged with an offence of dishonesty, however paltry the sum involved, of the right to trial by jury.
The practical point is simply this. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred quite rightly to the pressures of work upon the Crown Court. But we must not be under the impression that life at the magistrates' court is, if you forgive my saying so, anything of a doddle. The noble Lord said that it would take about nine weeks for a case involving petty dishonesty to come for trial at the Crown Court. I suggest that the noble Lord goes along to Bow Street magistrates' court and asks for a date for a simple contested case of dishonesty for an amount of less than £100, which

369
may take two days. He will not get a fixture in nine weeks. It will be a jolly sight nearer nine months before that case comes to trial.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord will concede that as this is a summary offence with no imprisonment as punishment the person will not be nine weeks in prison. That is what I was talking about.
Lord Wigoder: No, but he may be nine months awaiting trial. The practical problem is this and Members of the Committee who have been justices will confirm it. In many parts of the country justices sit either in the mornings or afternoons. In some parts of the country they sit for one whole day each week or perhaps one whole day a fortnight. Going to tribunals of that sort and saying, "I have here a case which is quite complicated; it is true that the amount involved is only £100. I want a fixture where the same three justices can sit together on two or three consecutive days to try the case". That request would be quite impossible to meet and it would put an even greater burden upon the justices than there is at the moment. I venture to suggest that both on principle and on practical grounds this is a wholly impracticable amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I—
Lord Mishcon: I have given way many times, as the Committee will have seen. I hope it will hear with me for just a few moments on this matter.
I want at once to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for bringing the matter before us in such a liberal way. He said that he is here to hear the views of the Committee on a matter which concerns us all, namely, the fact that our prisons are crowded and too often crowded with remand prisoners. The answer that I give to the noble Lord is this. By all means let us look again at the question of remands and the circumstances in which they are given. Let us send out an edict which is even stronger than the ones which this House has given in the past.
We can try to remedy the situation of the number of people on remand. From the practical point of view—and I am only anxious to raise points which have not been raised so far—the noble Lord said that the people concerned would be saved the problem of having prisoners on remand in this class of case for about nine weeks.
I tremble to think that we are sending people to prison on remand who are charged with an offence of as small a nature as this and who presumably have said that they wish to defend the matter and be tried by a jury. The objections which the police raise to bail under present regulations are the likelihood of the commission of another offence. If that is the case a fine is not going to be the answer. If it is to be imprisonment then quite obviously there must be the right to go before a judge and jury.
Lord Elton: I apologise for the frequent interruptions but I have obviously not made one thing clear. The reason why so many people arc on remand for so long is the congestion of the courts. It Vol. 489
370
does not follow that the cases which are congesting the courts involve people who are on remand. if a court is sitting on a series of cases of petty theft, other matters are held up. Persons who are charged with more serious offences cannot be brought to court until the court is ready to take them. If the court had less business the turn-round of remand prisoners who are not charged with petty theft would be very much quicker.
I hope I have made that clear. The noble Lord looks more mystified than he usually does, I must confess, after the interruption than before.
Lord Mishcon: I was not looking mystified at all. I was only regretting that I had misunderstood the noble Lord. It was a picture of regret that was supposed to he painted on my face and nothing more.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. I had not understood him before. I say two things about the delay caused by hearing petty cases at the Crown Court. It would be interesting to have some statistics as to how many cases of petty theft to the value of under £100 are in fact going to the Crown Court. It would be interesting to know what the percentage is. We will see then whether it really is a problem.
I adopt the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which is that it may very well be that the Crown Court lists are crowded. So are the magistrates' court lists. Many cases that come before the magistrates' court are of a serious nature and there are committal proceedings where the old-fashioned committal procedure takes place. That is where the whole of the prosecution case, at the instance of the defence, has to be brought before the magistrates.
These are matters which are delaying hearings in exactly the same way. I certainly say to the Committee that where there is the chance of imprisonment, and also the charge of dishonesty, there must be the right to go before a jury, whatever the value of the goods and quite apart from the question of whether it is a second or third offence.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the amendment does not allow of imprisonment.
Lord Mishcon: I said that.
Lord Roskill: I desire to support this amendment with all the force that I can. I understand that I am about to be reinforced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice so I will he as brief as I can. Memory plays odd tricks, but my recollection is that this proposal was first put forward by the committee of Lord Justice James in 1974. Unlike the dying professor's advice, I have not verified my references. My recollection is that it found favour in this House but it was rejected in another place. That may or may not be right. The Minister says that I am wrong. I have a recollection that it was put forward and rejected.
There are a large number of reasons why, in one form or another, this amendment should be accepted. The first is the enormous pressure of work on the

371
Crown Court. The second is that, as the noble Lord said when he intervened a moment ago, these cases hold up other and far more deserving cases.
The argument that is invariably put forward, and was put forward 10 years ago, is about the man of high reputation who steals the evening paper or bottle of milk off his neighbour's doorstep and it is said: "Oh well, his reputation is in peril, therefore he should have trial by jury." Magistrates send many people to prison for other offences involving reputation just as much they do for stealing a bottle of milk or an evening paper. There is no reason why this sort of petty theft should be in a privileged position any more than some of the offences which we debated earlier this afternoon. This proposal should go forward in one form or another.
The form of the amendment needs looking at a little more closely. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, instanced the man who committed a dozen or more of these offences at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said the same thing. There are various ways of dealing with this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested that his new clause should apply only to first offenders. I am not sure myself that that is quite sufficient because you may get someone who two or three years later does a silly thing a second time.
The other way, in the case to which the noble Lord referred, would be to allow committal for sentence by the magistrates to the Crown Court. That would not, as the law stands at the moment, meet the position. My recollection is, but I may be wrong, that on committal for sentence from the magistrates' court, the Crown Court can only on a summary offence pass the same sentence as the magistrates' court. However, there ought to be an easy way round that to allow the Crown Courts the same power as if the offence had been tried on an indictment.
In principle, this amendment is on the right lines and I invite the Committee to supportit
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that on no account will the Government accept the principle of this amendment. If it is ever put to the test I hope it will never be accepted whether proposed by the Government or by any other quarter.
Crowding in prisons is a serious problem. Delays in the Crown Court are also a serious problem; so are the pressures of work on the Crown Court; and so is the remand situation. A mandatory fine for theft of under £100 may be one way of dealing with this problem but on no account would the removal of the right of trial by jury be appropriate. I would not have limited it to scale 4. I would not have limited it to £100. But those are matters of drafting. It is the principle against which I rebel and I find it wholly unacceptable. Dishonesty and intent are all matters drawn by way of inference from primary evidence. I think one noble and learned Lord said that it was a trivial matter. Another noble and learned Lord said, "Well, it is the same old story. We hear about how serious it is but the magistrates can try it." That is all very well.
372
Certainly in my limited experience of these matters the people involved can be, for example, the wife of the manager of one of the big five banks. Somebody could be involved whose whole social life, employment prospects, or even their pension rights can be affected by a finding of dishonesty, shoplifting or something of that nature. It could not matter whether it is more or less than £100. The life of that person is wrecked, and wrecked for good. I shall never, as a matter of principle, support this amendment, notwithstanding that it is obviously made respectable by the support from the noble and learned Lords from the Cross-Benches.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: It gives me great pleasure for once to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I agree with everything he has said. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is objectionable on the fundamental ground that it is wrong to try to cure what is an administrative problem—the situation of the remand prisoners that we have gone on and on about for so many years—by trying to alter fundamental legal principles.
May I say without abuse that the noble Lord held a position in the Home Office for a long period with great distinction but he failed utterly to cure the problem of the remand prisoners. Why? Because he failed to get the remand prisoners out of the local prisons and insist on them not having this ludicrous degree of security, which they do not need, and failed to create remand hostels and places outside the prisons where they can go. The attempt to cure that problem by altering legal principles is simply to shift the responsibility from the Home Office, where it belongs, to the lawyers and the legal system. That is fundamentally the wrong approach.
The other fundamentally wrong approach is to concentrate on the value. It is the offence that matters, not the value. Try your parking and hundreds of other petty offences in the magistrates' courts, but theft is not a petty offence. When in a position of trust, whether you are a grandee in the Civil Service or whether you look after the till in the local village shop, if charged with dishonesty your character, worth more than pearls and diamonds, is at risk. I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, talking about it as though it is a petty matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, "These people should plead guilty. These lawyers come along and ask for legal aid which they never should have. These people who appear in the magistrates' court should not have legal aid. It is the lawyers who come along and ask for legal aid so that they can get a nice fat fee and see that this person is properly defended." Sometimes the noble and learned Lord lets cats out of bags and we begin to see the approach of the higher judiciary to these problems.
The matter of principle which we debated in the last amendment in the criminal law seems now to have gone out of the window. Nobody bothers. Is it important that a person's character is at stake, that he should have legal aid, that he should be tried by his own peers, that he should be entitled to a fair trial? Is that not important any more in this country? "Oh no," they say, "Get rid of legal aid. Get on with the

373
case as quick as you can and let us deal with it. Give the muggers trial by jury because that is violence, but not the persons who are alleged to have stolen something out of a shop worth 3s 6d. He must be tried by the magistrates and he ought to plead guilty." No, for goodness sake do not allow this amendment to go through.
Lord Lane: I am incapable of the sort of histrionics we have just heard. Anything I say will be, by comparison at any rate, extremely dull. I support this amendment. It is purely a matter of practical and very dull politics. I am unmoved by Lord Campbell's bank manager's wife. She deserves to be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else. Nor is anyone altering any fundamental legal principles. The fundamental legal principle is that no one is convicted unless the prosecution proves the case so that the jury or the magistrates feel sure. That is the fundamental principle and that is not in issue here. Without going into any statistics, there is no doubt that a very significant proportion of valuable Crown Court time is taken up by dealing with this sort of case. It was said that 10 per cent. is the figure. I do not know and I would not quarrel with that. We are also told that the cost of one day in the Crown Court runs into thousands of pounds; something like £3,000 or £4,000. We all know, particularly in the South-East, that the delay in criminal trials is unacceptable. Try as one will, it is almost impossible to keep pace with the increase in the number of offences sent for trial, which, I think, has risen by 50 per cent. in the past six or seven years. In addition, we now find the Crown Prosecution Service desperately short of money.
The choice is simple to state. It may not be easy to make. We can either continue to expend huge sums of money on trying these cases of petty theft, at whatever level one likes to say is petty, at the same time expending large amounts of extremely valuable Crown Court time, which could be taken up by trying important and substantial cases. That is what the luxury of jury trial means. Or we could relegate the petty theft to the same category as travelling on the railway without paying for a ticket, or bilking London Transport, which is just as dishonest as stealing milk bottles or shoplifting a tin of beans from Woolworths. It carries the same stigma, and yet that, as I undestand it, is not triable in the Crown Court; it is triable only by the magistrates' court.
I say respectfully that on any rational basis, sentiment apart, trial by the justices, with no option for jury trial (as the James Report recommended 11 or 12 years ago) seemed to be the obvious answer. If, on the other hand, sentiment is preferred to speedy and economical justice, then no rational argument will ever prevail.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I just ask the noble and learned Lord whether he meant luxury when he spoke of the luxury of jury trial? It is a curious idea. I should have thought "luxury" was wrong, and I should like to give him the opportunity to withdraw the word.
Lord Lane: I do not.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say thank you to the noble and learned Lord?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lord Elton gave notice of his interest in this matter on Second Reading, and he does this place a great service by raising it again today when we have had the opportunity to consider it in more detail. I have listened with the greatest interest to the views of all Members of the Committee.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said, the history of the proposal that minor cases of theft should be triable only by the magistrates' court goes back to the James Committee in 1975. It did not however survive into the Criminal Law Act 1977, despite a most eloquent defence in Committee by the then Lord Chancellor whom I am delighted to see opposite me today. On that occasion he was a little hampered by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who performed some enviable arithmetical gymnastics with the proposed threshold sum of £20 and a tin of caviar, if I remember correctly.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Does the noble Earl remember the opposition of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies: "who steals my purse steals trash", and the rest of it? Wonderful!
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, and I refreshed my memory on that debate earlier this morning. Just as some of the faces in the Chamber today are the same as during the debate on the Criminal Law Bill 10 years—and nine months ago, almost to the day—the main issues at stake are familiar, too. The Government exposed these fully last year in the discussion paper on the distribution of business to which I have already referred today. We set out the arguments for and against change, and floated a possible approach, short of full reclassification, which we thought might have satisfied one of our main objections raised in response to the James Report. That our exposition was even-handed I cannot doubt since responses to it were split down the middle, just as in today's debate. The only point on which there was virtual unanimity was that the possible compromises we had floated would not do.
There remain powerful arguments on both sides. My noble friend Lord Elton has pointed out that his amendment could reduce the Crown Court's workload by up to 10 per cent. I need hardly say what welcome relief a reduction of that order would bring to the Crown Court. Crown Court business has increased by over 50 per cent. since 1979 and the delays in bringing cases to trial are a source of concern to us all. We are tackling these through statutory time limits and other means; but a once-and-for-all reduction in workload would be desirable. A reduction in maximum sentence would also have a beneficial effect on the prison population.
Members of the Committee have argued that too many petty thieves clog up the criminal justice system. Our best estimate—it is only an estimate—is that up to half of all theft and handling cases taken to court involve sums of less than £100. That would mean that magistrates' courts deal with some 120,000

375
petty thieves a year. Something approaching 10,000 are committed for Crown Court trial. Only about 7,000 of these are sentenced to imprisonment. Even in the Crown Court, a clear majority receive non-custodial sentences.
Resource considerations are not of themselves a justification for deciding to treat an offence differently. We must be satisfied that such an offence can properly be dealt with by the magistrates. My noble friend argues that we can be so satisfied, and I find his argument persuasive. He has gone so far as to say that a fine of Level 4 (£1,000) is an adequate maximum penalty without the possibility of imprisonment. That point was taken up by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who felt that that was perhaps not the right sentence.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The point that I took was that that was not the right sentence for a second or subsequent offence or for a group of offences charged simultaneously. Arguably it is, for one offence.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for correcting that point. I should need to reflect further on the point relating to sentence with my right honourable friend, having listened carefully to the views expressed by the Committee.
On the other hand, we have heard some important objections of principle. The first mentioned today by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is that the value of property stolen is not a reliable indicator of the seriousness of the offence. That is the valid point. In order to assess seriousness, one must consider the full circumstances of the offence and the effects on the victim. Recognising that, our discussion paper proposed that magistrates' courts should be able to commit cases for trial where special circumstances made the offence one of exceptional gravity. But respondents felt that that did not adequately meet the point of principle at stake and that it would create an undesirably complicated set of procedures, departing from the present clear demarcation between summary offences and offences triable either way, and that the benefits of reclassification would be so diluted as to be not worth pursuing.
The second and perhaps even more intractable objection was forcefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is that for many people a conviction for dishonesty can have devastating effects. It can destroy reputations and take away livelihoods. Anyone in jeopardy of such consequences should be entitled to have his case put to a jury. I fully understand and respect that point of view, not, I hasten to add, because I accept the implication that magistrates supply an inferior justice—I believe that the magistrates' court is the right forum for these offences—but because of the wider question of confidence in the criminal justice system.
376
Despite saying that, I was interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord said about the magistrates' courts. He was supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. It is of course true that they try other cases affecting people's livelihoods; but that is something we ignore at our peril. I said so when we were debating the very different matter of correcting unduly lenient sentences. I do not think that any of the Members of the Committee would disagree on the aim, although some may have different views about the means of achieving it. I have listened with great care to the arguments on all sides. My noble friend Lord Elton has been most persuasive, bringing to bear, as he does, his experience as a much respected former Home Office Minister. He has obtained support, qualified or unqualified, from several Members of the Committee, including the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice. Others have spoken powerfully against the amendment. Having heard the Committee's views, I think that it is right for me to take the issue away and consider carefully with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary what has been said.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that undertaking. It almost denies me the chance of replying to a number of points that have been made because I am so grateful that I do not wish to make a speech.
Perhaps I ought to pursue the argument of my 10 years of office with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in another forum. I would only say that I was acutely sensitive to the point that he raised. When I was a Minister I made it my business to talk in particular to young offenders in local prisons asking whether they would like to be moved away to somewhere less crowded and further away from their parents and friends. Unanimously they wished to stay where they were. The problem is not as simple as it is often seen to be.
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I shall hear from him before the next stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.21 to 8.20 p.m.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
("Assaulting a police officer etc. to be triable either way.
(1) The offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty under section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964 shall be an offence triable either way within the meaning of section 64 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (instead of only summarily).
(2) In section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964, after the word "liable" there shall be substituted for the words in column 3 of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (as amended by section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982) the words:—

"(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or in the case of a second or subsequent offence nine months, or to a tine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both."

(3) In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Law Act. 1977, leave out paragraph 18 (Police Act 1964).
(4) In Schedule 1 to the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, insert a new paragraph 23A as follows:
("23A. Offences under secton 51(1) of the Police Act 1964.")").
The noble Lord said: I rise in this moderately crowded Chamber to move this amendment. Section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964 created the offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty. It also applies where a victim is a person assisting a constable. I am sure that we all agree that the offence is a serious offence. It matters not whether the policeman suffers bodily harm. The police are our representatives to secure good order and to protect our citizens. They are entitled to expect us to look upon it as a more than merely minor matter when they are met with violence or the threat of violence.
This is a view, as one would expect, shared traditionally by the courts. The Court of Appeal in a 1973 case said that a custodial sentence was to be considered normal for a deliberate assault on a police officer. As I understand it a comparatively high proportion of those convicted find themselves sent to prison, and rightly so.
I invite the Committee to draw two conclusions from this. First, an offence under Section 51(1) should carry a substantial maximum penalty reflecting the fact that, even though the officer may have been fortunate and not have suffered injury, the conduct complained of can be very serious. For example, it is always very serious when it occurs in the course of resisting arrest.
The second conclusion is that a defendant charged under Section 51(1) should be able to elect for trial by jury, all the more so because the circumstances of the alleged offence may be confused and there may be a serious conflict of evidence. Before 1977 there was for a defendant convicted by a jury in the Crown Court a proper maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. But it was only the prosecution, not the defence, which had the right then to opt for jury trial. The 1975 James Report on the distribution of criminal business correctly regarded this as unsatisfactory. But instead of following the James Report's recommendation and allowing a defendant to opt for jury trial, the Criminal Law Act 1977 dealt with the imbalance by making the offence triable only summarily before magistrates. It necessarily followed that the maximum penalty had to be reduced to six months. So, for the sake of keeping defendants out of the Crown Court, this serious offence was unjustifiably downgraded.
The purpose of this amendment is, on the one hand, to restore a suitable maximum penalty and, on the other hand, to give the defendant charged with
378
this offence rights commensurate with it. I appreciate that the present thrust of government policy revealed in Clauses 32 to 35 of the Bill is to add to the list of offences triable only summarily. But I submit that Section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964 has good claims to he a special case.
Nothing I say, I hasten to emphasise, is to be taken as involving any lack of confidence in or any lack of appreciation for the fine work that magistrates do daily up and down the country. But, apart from the pressing need to show strong support for the police in the face of rising crime, it is also necessary to bear in mind that it would not be surprising if a Section 51(1) offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty is the kind of case where the police very naturally view events from their own point of view. These are obviously cases where it is of critical importance that there be public confidence in the resolution of conflicts of evidence that may arise. Therefore the possibility of a jury trial is important so that justice may be seen to be done. It is also necessary in order to curtail the practice which there may be of charging serious cases under Section 51(1) and so avoiding the case going to jury trial in the Crown Court.
I commend the amendment to the Committee and, if it finds favour, the Committee will be in the happy position of at the one time both voting to support the police and providing a proper safeguard for the defendants in these cases. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will look with sympathy on the purpose of this amendment. I am not sure whether technically it is correct in form or will fit perfectly into the existing legal structure, but the purpose of treating an assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty as a more serious offence is one that I should wish very strongly to support.
The police nowadays are exposed only too frequently to a great deal of violence, to attacks made upon them in the course of their duty, and in some ways they have a more difficult time than they ever had before. It might be some encouragement to them if the legislature indicated that it appreciated this by upgrading the offence of an assault upon them in the execution of their duty. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I also should like to support the amendment. It is nice to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also supports it, because, speaking from my own experience, I have never undertood why this offence is not triable by jury. It has always been one of the great mysteries. It is one of the most serious offences that the citizen can possibly be convicted of, and must find its place among serious offences. It is far more serious than a great many offences for which one can always choose trial by jury. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact that on many occasions an assault on the police is charged by the police when things get difficult in any sort of arrest situation. Very often that is alleged because somebody has been approached by the

379
police, has been cheeky to the police or has had some difficulty with the police, so that the police charge them with this offence ultimately, whether rightly or wrongly. But it is a matter which constantly arises and it gives the police a very strong power indeed. Very often it is a question of the citizen's word against that of a number of police officers.
It is an issue which requires, almost more than any other issue, a really detached approach to try to find the truth in this kind of allegation. One cannot shut one's eyes to the fact, again, that magistrates get to know their own police officers by the nature of things. They get to know the police who constantly appear in their courts. It is extremely difficult to be able to keep an absolutely balanced and open mind if it is alleged that there was an assault on an officer who you know very well is a good officer. It should be open to the citizen in these circumstances to go for trial by jury if he feels that possibly the magistrates will not have an open mind on the matter. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken I too should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this. What is the reason for not enabling people to go for trial on this offence, which after all is one of the most serious offences with which anybody can be charged?
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I know that we all sympathise wholeheartedly with the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for moving this amendment. Police officers in the course of their duty are often exposed to the risk of attack and they are entitled to expect whatever protection the law can give. I shall be inviting the Committee on a future day to consider the Government's proposals for tougher controls on offensive weapons and knives. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear in announcing these measures that he had very much in the forefront of his mind the young police officer whose job is made so much more dangerous by knife-wielding thugs and the ready availability of nasty weapons. That is an important step forward in tackling the cause. But it is right also, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, invites us to do, to consider punishment and deterrence.
The law recognises the need for special protection for certain categories of people who are especially vulnerable by reason of their age, occupation or other personal circumstances. Only last Thursday the Committee had a very full and valuable debate on the special needs of children in the criminal justice system. Police officers are another group whom the law singles out for certain purposes. The very existence of a specific offence of assault on a police officer marks society's view that it is a special case; and the courts will have regard to this when passing sentence. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that for any assault on a police officer involving the deliberate use of force the normal sentence will be a loss of liberty. It has upheld custodial sentences in cases where the degree of force used was far from severe and the injury to the officer minimal.
But the courts have never represented to my right honourable friend that the six month maximum for
380
the 1964 Act offence hampered their sentencing. We are not here considering serious attacks causing grave harm to the police officer. The charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, is available for those cases. I do not underestimate the seriousness of any assault on a police officer. But I must ask the Committee to consider whether the magistrates are not fully competent to deal with the more minor assaults, whether jury trial is really justified in such cases when we are trying in other ways to relieve the Crown Court and whether there is any reason to think that the existing maximum penalty is inadequate.
It has been suggested that the magistrates should not try these offences because the evidence often comes down to a dispute between the accused and the police officer, who may be the only other witness. Magistrates hear the evidence of police officers every day on a multitude of charges. They are used to assessing its weight. It is quite mistaken to think that they are incapable of dealing fairly with this offence. The strong underlying principle of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is that the mode of trial for an offence should be driven by the maximum penalty to which the offender is liable. For the reasons I have given, the Government consider that six months' imprisonment is the appropriate maximum penalty for this offence, and that points firmly to summary trial. However, I recognise that those who have spoken in this short debate have all expressed support for the idea and I shall reflect on it further in the light of what has been said.
Perhaps I may turn to the details of the noble Lord's amendment. He proposes a higher maximum penalty of nine months' imprisonment on summary conviction of a second or subsequent offence. Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 abolished enhanced penalties in practically all existing legislation. Moreover a sentence of nine months is outside the magistrates' sentencing powers. The Government would therefore find it difficult to accept the proposed maximum penalties on summary conviction in the noble Lord's amendment. However, in view of the support the noble Lord has had from all parts of the Committee I should like to take this away and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: In view of the noble Earl's undertaking to give the matter further consideration, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 negatived.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 47A:
After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:
("Power of Court of Appeal to order retrial.
.—(1) The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 7(1), the words "and do so only by reason of evidence received or available to be received by them under section 23 of this Act" shall cease to have effect.
(3) At the end of subsection (I) of section 8 there shall be added the words "but after the end of two months from the date of the order for his retrial he may not be arraigned on an indictment preferred in pursuance of such a direction unless the Court of Appeal give leave.".
(4) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—
"(1A) Where a person has been ordered to be retried but may not he arraigned without leave, he may apply to the Court of Appeal to set aside the order for retrial and to direct the court of trial to enter a judgment and verdict of acquittal of the offence for which he was ordered to be retried.
(1B) On an application under subsection (1) or (1A) above the Court of Appeal shall have power—

(a) to grant leave to arraign: or

(b) to direct the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal,

but shall not give leave to arraign unless they are satisfied—

(i) that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition; and

(ii) that there is a good and sufficient cause for a retrial in spite of the lapse of time since the order under section 7 of this act was made."

(5) Nothing in this section applies where notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal was given before the commencement of this section.").
The noble Earl said: With this it may be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 256A, 256B, 260B, 267A, 240, 241 and 267. Amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 267 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. At this stage perhaps I may say that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for withdrawing the amendment that was in his name.
All these amendments seek to extend the present power of the Court of Appeal to order a retrial when allowing an appeal against conviction. There is substantial agreement among all the proposers on what is needed. Naturally I favour my own amendments and hope that I can persuade the other proposers to the benefits of my suggestion and the Committee to agree that they be incorporated in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is unfortunately unable to attend our debate because of judical business but he has authorised me to say that he supports my proposals.
Section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits the Court of Appeal to order a retrial if it appears to it that the interests of justice so require, but only if it has allowed the appeal against conviction by reason of evidence received or available to be received under Section 23 of the Act. Thus if the court has to quash a conviction because, say, the judge misdirected the jury or because evidence was wrongfully excluded or admitted at the trial at present, it has no power to order a retrial. I think no one can dispute that because of this limitation people who on the merits are probably guilty can escape justice on a technicality and that cannot be right. This anomaly is even more striking when one looks at the position in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In 1966 Parliament gave the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal a wide power to order a retrial. The only limitation is that the court considers this in the interests of justice. Similarly in 1980 the Scottish High Court was given an unfettered power to order a retrial on allowing an appeal against conviction.
In view of these developments last March we issued a consultative paper covering an extremely helpful paper from the criminal law team of the Law Commission on this subject, seeking comment on whether the English Court of Appeal should be given similar powers. All those who responded were in favour of extending the existing power. There was general agreement that the court should be able to order a retrial where the interests of justice so required whether or not it had allowed the appeal on the basis of fresh evidence. That would be the effect of my amendment and those in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. As I have said this is also the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane.
Where my own amendment differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is in the introduction of a time limit within which a retrial must normally commence, Many commentators on our consultative paper felt that a wider power should he balanced by such a safeguard for the accused. We agree and have adopted two months as is the case in Scotland. This cannot be an absolute limit. For example, a retrial cannot commence if the accused has absconded or is simply too ill to be arraigned.
What I propose is that if the retrial has not commenced within two months the prosecution will need the leave of the Court of Appeal before arraignment can take place. At the same time the accused will be able to apply to the court to have the order for a retrial set aside and an acquittal entered in its place. Leave to arraign may not be given unless the court is satisfied that the criteria laid down in Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 are satisfied. Those are concerned with the extension by a court of a time limit under that Act and seemed to us the best precedent to follow. Thus the court may only permit arraignment after two months if it is satisfied that, first, the prosecution has acted with all due expedition; and secondly, that there is good and sufficient cause for a retrial in spite of the lapse of time since the court's original order was made.
The amendments I propose to Schedule 10 do two things. First, they provide that applications for leave to arraign or to have an acquittal entered can be heard by a single judge of the Court of Appeal. Secondly, they ensure that a defendant who succeeds in such an application can obtain his costs. The amendment to Schedule 11 is consequential.
Now that the equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland have wide powers to order a retrial, there is no good reason why the English Court of Appeal should be limited in its powers. The only limitation should be that a retrial is in the interests of justice. The court will be well aware of the risk of injustice if stale cases are retried and can be trusted to balance this against the injustice to society as a whole if a criminal escapes on a technicality. My proposal for a two-month time limit provides an extra safeguard for the accused in this respect and will ensure that retrials commence promptly.
This may be a convenient time to give the Committee notice that I hope to bring forward at a later stage amendments on documentary evidence at retrials. Part II of the Bill will permit a more widespread use of such evidence at trials. But if oral

383
evidence was given at the first trial it seems to me that the same evidence should normally be given orally at any retrial. I shall table amendments to this effect for Report.
My present amendments are a useful and, some would say, long overdue reform. I hope I have convinced those Members who have proposed similar amendments of the merits of my own proposals and that they will now feel able to support my amendments and not press their own. I hope the Committee will also agree that my proposal should be accepted, and I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may support this amendment. The principle of it was reflected in my Amendment No. 66 the first time around. At Second Reading I put down a marker for tabling that amendment, and the principle had the support of the noble and learned Lords, Lords Lane, Lord Ackner, Lord Denning and Lord Roskill. On the second occasion it had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Having spoken to it at Second Reading the second time around, I retabled Amendment No. 66, which had the support of the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches. It appeared as Amendment No. 45 on the first Marshalled List. I have withdrawn that in favour of the government amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having accepted the principle. I congratulate the Government on the form of the draftsmanship.
The power to order a retrial by reason of fresh evidence is not affected. I wonder whether my noble friends would be quieter.
I am deaf in one ear, and my radar system is jammed if conversations continue on the Benches below. The power to order a retrial by reason of fresh evidence is not affected, but, where a conviction is quashed under the clause proposed by this amendment, fresh evidence could be taken into account as affecting the interests of justice.
As I understand it, the new indictment on retrial could include counts upon which the accused had not been charged; counts on which he had been arraigned and to which he had pleaded, not to be proceeded with until further order; or counts identical with, or similar to, those charged in the first indictment on which the accused was convicted. In quashing the conviction and authorising a new trial it would be open to the Court of Appeal, if so advised, to limit by direction, as I understand it, the scope of the second indictment by giving ancillary directions to such effect.
In support of the principle of this amendment, albeit in the form in which it was tabled in my name the first time around, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, commended the idea to your Lordships, observing in terms that the provisos of Section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act were inadequate in many cases and that the present situation was not satisfactory. This amendment was also commended in terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He asked why a defendant against whom there was really strong evidence and who was plainly rightly
384
convicted should escape simply because the judge had made a mistake.
It is late and I shall merely conclude by pointing to the fact that the principle of this amendment, and the principle for which I have always contended, is accepted in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in many countries of the Commonwealth. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: The last occasion on which this matter was considered in Parliament was in 1964. Lord Reid introduced an amendment in Committee. The amendment was defeated by 55 votes to 54. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker. although in favour, voted against the amendment because the Queen's Bench Judges were split 16 to 14. Lord Denning, who was in favour and gave evidence to that effect in the Tucker Committee, was not then provided by our generous Treasury with a car, and, as the division took place not long after 4.30, I know from bitter experience that he might still have been sitting.
The Criminal law team of the Law Commission prepared this paper. It has been distributed to the judges who deal with criminal matters, some 33 of them. They have all replied in favour of the power being extended. As the Committee has heard, the limited powers of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division are now unique in the common law world, which places a pretty heavy onus, I would suggest, on those who wish to retain the present situation. It causes problems nowadays in a number of respects, but one respect in particular. It is very sensible for counsel for the defence who wishes to save time, or even achieve a tactical manoeuvre, to get the judge's ruling on a point of law or on the admissibility of evidence before he has to call his evidence. Having got an unfavourable ruling he then changes his plea to one of guilty and, as he is entitled to, promptly goes to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. When it is decided that the judge gave a wrong ruling, all that the Court of Appeal is left with is the prospect of using the proviso, which means that it can dismiss the appeal if it is satisfied that a jury, properly directed with the extra material would inevitably have convicted. However, it cannot reach that conclusion if the defendant has never called any evidence. The net result is that appeals are being allowed in a situation in which that should not occur.
In a debate which took place as far back as 21 years ago before Scotland and Ireland were given such powers, the late Lord Reid said:
"Why cannot we look at the experience in other Commonwealth countries? Throughout the greater part of the Commonwealth English law applies and the habits. methods and atmosphere in legal circles are very much like our own … I should think that we are fairly safe to look at experience in those Commonwealth countries with a view to learning from it".
In the same debate the late Lord Simonds said that as the law stood at the time a man convicted of one crime, appealing on the ground that there was fresh evidence available, would be entitled, if the Court of Appeal thought fit, to a new trial. In such a case the so-called fundamental rule that a man was not to be put in peril twice was forgotten altogether. If the same man, convicted, appealed on the ground that

385
the evidence had been wrongly admitted or wrongly rejected, the Court of Appeal could do nothing. It might not order a new trial because, so it was said, that would be to put him in peril twice. Lord Simonds then asked the rhetorical question: "Could there be greater nonsense than that?"
As regards the issue of double jeopardy, I should like to remind the Committee that we are not dealing with anything other than a conviction. The accused has been convicted, not acquitted. In fact, the second trial gives him the opportunity of securing an acquittal. However, every time a jury disagrees, not only is the prosecution entitled to prosecute the accused again, but no one can stop the prosecution from doing so.
Perhaps I may offer the Committee one final quotation from 21 years ago, which is way out of date. It is from a report in Justice shortly before 1964. The excerpt reads:
"The Courts hearing criminal appeals in Australia, Canada and New Zealand all have the power to order a new trial. Lawyers in these commonwealth countries have been consulted and the substance of what they say is that the Bar accept that the power to order a new trial is desirable and beneficial, that it works well and that their experience gives no ground for thinking that the fears which have been expressed about it in England are valid".
To those who would resist this amendment I commend the words of wisdom in Francis Bacon: "They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they can see nothing but the sea".
Lord Renton: After that fascinating description of the history and principles underlying this amendment, the Committee will not expect to hear much from me—at least I hope that it will not. Perhaps I may say that I also support the principle of this new clause.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, the amendment is properly drafted. It has been done by the method of textual amendment, which was the right way to do it, but I must say that from the point of view of legislators, especially those of us who have not had any experience of work in the criminal courts, it would have been helpful to have had it presented in a slightly different way. I am not blaming my noble and learned friend Lord Caithness personally—
The Earl of Caithness: I am certainly not learned.
Lord Renton: I am sorry—not yet; I meant my noble friend Lord Caithness. I am blaming the system. If this matter had been in the Bill as presented to us at Second Reading, no doubt there would have been an explanation of the effect of this new clause in the explanatory memorandum. However, we do not have that advantage. We could have been shown the matter exactly as it affects the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, or at any rate Sections 7 and 8 of that Act, if what is called a Keeling schedule had been used.
A Keeling schedule sets out the law which it is sought to amend and shows the amendments in italics so that it is possible for the legislators in either Chamber to see exactly what their effect will be. We do not have that advantage either. I mention that
386
point because on an occasion such as this I think it would be most helpful were those who prepare these amendments for the Government to bear in mind that it would save a lot of trouble in understanding and some trouble in research if there could be some kind of explanatory memorandum or a Keeling schedule. Having said that, I welcome the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It is with considerable diffidence that a Scottish lawyer gets up at this point from these Benches. However, having heard the references to the late Lord Reid and the Scottish position, I should like first of all to say that I wholly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I should like to pray in aid the amendment to the Scottish legislation which was carried through by the then Lord Advocate (who may have a further influence on the Government) the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the 1980 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, because the amendments which are now Sections 254 and 255 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 were brought in as complete clauses replacing the old sections, thus giving Parliament a full picture of what was being achieved.
I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is very much easier to follow amendments if one has the advantage of everything in one document. That having been said, this side of the Committee accepts the principle of the amendment, which appears to follow the Scottish and other Commonwealth provisions in allowing appeals, for example, where something has gone wrong or where there has been a misdirection.
Perhaps I may say that it appears to me from the Scottish position—and these provisions have only been in force since 1980—that the system works in favour of the individual who may have been convicted with a misdirection. If this provision did not exist, the Court of Appeal might be tempted to say that there had been no substantial miscarriage of justice. Under the new provision they are enabled to say, "We are not sure whether or not there has been a miscarriage of justice in total and therefore we shall allow a new trial". That seems to me to be of considerable benefit for the freedom of the individual, and therefore we support these proposals.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to intervene again for a short moment. It is some time since I have been a "devil" and I have overlooked some specific instructions that the Chief Justice asked me to bring to Members' attention. There is a technical point involved under Schedule 10. It is provided that the "single" judge (and that is not a reference to his marital status but merely denotes that he is acting on his own behalf) should have power to exercise the decision under subsection (4)(1A) or (4)(1B), which is to set aside the order for retrial and direct the court of a trial to enter judgment and verdict. My request from the Chief Justice was to say that this is a matter which is looked upon as being of such importance as to justify the full court of three judges and that it should not be dealt with by a single judge. It is a nuts and bolts matter, but I thought,

387
particularly in view of the sustained harmony, that I had better mention it now.
Lord Roskill: I just add, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway mentioned what I had said on Second Reading, that I wholeheartedly support this amendment. Those of us who have either been reversed on a technicality or who have had to reverse other people on a technicality have long regretted that we have not had this power. I respectfully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said a moment ago. This power has existed for some years in Scotland and I have always understood that it has existed with great satisfaction. It will fill a gap which has long needed filling.
I respectfully echo what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said and indeed also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, a few moments ago. As we were discussing earlier this afternoon the various amendments to the Magistrates' Courts Act the thought occurred to me as an ex-chairman of the Consolidation Committee what a frightful shambles the various statutes could be in at the end of this Bill unless something is done to evolve a single legislative pattern right through. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is reinforced by the amendments which are now being proposed, and which are likely to succeed to the Criminal Appeal Acts of 1966 and 1968. It is necessary that these should be in a coherent form in this statute or, if it cannot be done in this statute, in some consolidation Act which could come very shortly afterwards so that there will not be any doubt in connection with the Magistrates' Courts Act, this Bill or any of the other innumerable Acts which are going to be affected by this Bill when it becomes an Act as to what the law is. If it is not done chaos may result.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: I should like to make one more point, which is that this removes what is an anomaly in the law. Seeing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, there, I can best illustrate this by the fact that a case which I threw out at the conclusion of the prosecution case at quarter sessions was taken to the divisional court, over which at the time the noble and learned Lord was presiding; and the divisional court criticised me for throwing it out and ordered that the justices should carry out a new trial. So this can already be done at the lower level and it is absurd that it should not be done at the proper level.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I ventured to say on a previous occasion that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was very well qualified to be a shop steward for the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and I see from tonight's contribution that I was not far wrong.
Lord Ackner: Just to assist my friend, he may be happy to know that I appeared before the Top Salaries Review Body on their behalf last Friday. I confirm my prophetic voice.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: To the disappointment, I am sure, of the noble and learned Lord, in general, after a great deal of doubt, I would not be opposed to this amendment. I have taken due
388
notice of what happens in the Commonwealth and perhaps I might take the opportunity to put the Minister right. In the previous amendment to which he referred I certainly made no attack upon the legal systems of the Commonwealth. What I was attacking was the idea of the prosecutor taking a part in the sentencing process, as is done in many continental legal systems. It was that to which I was referring and not to the systems of the Commonwealth.
Having said that, my doubts about this amendment arose because so often Parliament gives the court powers which are then operated quite differently from the manner envisaged when the power was bestowed. Section 7 of the Act is itself an example of this. It is quite clear, looking back on the debates in 1968, that what was intended was that, if fresh evidence came to light and the court was satisfied on the face of it that the evidence was capable of belief and if the original jury might well not have convicted if they had heard it, there should be a new trial. In other words, the accused should be retried by the only tribunal constitutionally empowered to do so, which is the jury.
In fact the Court of Appeal came to interpret the section completely differently, and, as the court had to allow the appeal first of all by reason of the new evidence, the court took it upon itself to assess the evidence and to decide whether it would cause it to be unsure and to find the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. If it found it unconvincing then it dismissed the appeal and there could be no retrial. It was this usurpation of the jury's role that caused the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, and many others to protest at the dismissal of the appeal in the case of Cooper and Mahon.
That is why I have doubts about this amendment. I am nervous that this power will be used when there have been real misdirections by the judge and errors by the trial judge in cases where juries have convicted and the defendant has suffered months of imprisonment and trauma through no fault whatever of his. If the judge had ruled certain evidence inadmissible at the trial or had given the proper direction in law, the accused would have been acquitted in all probability.
It is in those cases that it would be quite intolerable if the accused person had to go through the whole trial again. A return of a trial is a tremendous handicap to any accused person, when of course witnesses trim their evidence to fit in with the case which is presented at the first trial. Often of course there can be the greatest prejudice when someone is tried for the second time. One has only to think of Winston Silcot in the Blakelock murder case when, as your Lordships will remember, it came out that he had a previous conviction for murder. It would be absolutely impossible in a case such as that to have a retrial.
So there are problems and I am nervous that instead of appeals being allowed, as they are now, if a judge simply goes off the rails and gives a wrong direction or allows evidence in which he ought not to allow in, the Court of Appeal may say, "This fellow has 20 previous convictions: he had better go back and be tried again because we cannot possibly allow the appeal".

389
Therefore, I hope that the court will achieve a real balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the accused and that they very quickly will develop principles on which the court will act. The experience in Northern Ireland and in Scotland is certainly encouraging because there the power seems to have been only used very rarely.
The only other matter that I should like to raise is the matter of the proviso which was mentioned earlier—that the appeal can be dismissed if no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. I think that everybody who has had experience of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) would agree that the proviso is applied in a not really very satisfactory way. There does not seem to be a very strong principle on which it is applied. Perhaps the Court of Appeal will find it possible, if this becomes part of the law, to make a stricter and more consistent use of the section which deals with the proviso. I think that the two things rather go together, and I sincerely hope that that may be achieved.
Lord Wigoder: When the moment arrives when it begins to look as though my noble friend Lord Hutchinson is in agreement with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Roskill, perhaps the time has come to put the Question fairly hastily. I would not want to defer that issue for more than a moment.
I support this amendment because overall, I believe it to he in the interests of justice. By the interests of justice I do not mean simply the interests of the prosecution. I believe that at present there are cases where the Court of Appeal is placed in a dilemma. It may have to decide whether to quash a conviction or whether to apply the proviso; with some hesitation it applies the proviso and the conviction stands because the Court of Appeal does not have the power to order a new trial. I think that in the long-run if the court does have this power in this amendment to order a new trial it may be that in future the occasional innocent person will not be convicted; his conviction will not be sustained in the Court of Appeal; he will be retried; and in due course he will be acquitted. For that reason I believe that this amendment would be a step forward.
The Earl of Caithness: I have been much encouraged by the wide measure of support which this debate has uncovered for our proposal. I had hoped that I would have the full support of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Having supported my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and then my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I had thought that I would get lucky the third time and that the noble Lord would support me. But we are getting closer.
I agree wholeheartedly that change along these lines to bring this into line with other common law systems, including those in these islands, is long overdue. Of couse I take due note of the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton on the presentation of the amendments. He was strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill.
390
However, this could not be included in the Bill as introduced because our consultations were still going on. I have sought to explain their purpose as fully as I can in moving them this evening. Nevertheless, I do understand my noble friend's point and I shall convey it to those concerned. I also take the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked me to look into, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. Perhaps I can do that between now and another stage. With that happy degree of unanimity within the Committee, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 48:
Insert the following new clause:
("Rendering impotent.
Penalties for rape, murder and certain other crimes.
.—Where a man is convicted of an offence under section I of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 committed after a previous conviction under that same section, the Court may sentence him to he rendered impotent by whatever means and in such circumstances as the Secretary of State shall determine and this sentence may he the only sentence imposed or in addition to any other sentence which the Court has power to impose.").
The noble Viscount said: I just wonder whether it may be the wish of the Committee that, in view of the fact that our ranks are somewhat thinned by the lateness of the hour and that it may not he possible for us to give the proper measure of consideration, and, indeed, not appropriate to make decisions upon any or all of the amendments standing in my name at this late hour, we adjourn to another day. I should like some guidance on this before we start.
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it, the rule of the Committee is that, as the amendment is in the name of my noble friend, it is up to him whether or not he moves it. I would certainly oppose an adjournment of the Committee at this stage.
Viscount Mountgarret: I thank my noble friend. I just wanted clarification on that point. Perhaps I may, with leave of the Committee speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51 and 286, the last of which is consequential upon the other amendments, because if any or all of these are passed, then No. 286 comes into play.
I should like to make some general observations which are relevant to all these amendments and which will save repetition time and time again. It has been put to me in recent days that it could be regarded as inappropriate that our House should seek to write amendments of this sort into this Bill, as it would be more appropriate for another place to have the chance to discuss them beforehand, and that if we were to write such provisions into this Bill it might put us in an awkward position if another place felt that it was unable to agree. I thought about this very carefully and I do not think there should be any concern at all in this direction.
The Bill has started in this House and therefore we have been asked not to revise legislation but to instigate it. Therefore it is only right and proper that,

391
if we want to write in something new, we should do so. But having said that, I think that any of these provisions must be approved by both Houses, not with one House under duress, as it were, because the two Houses do not want to argue with each other. It is important and desirable that it is perfectly clear that, if any of these provisions got off the ground, it was the wish independently of both Houses.
I do not want anyone to run away with the idea that I am a hard person or do not have any sympathy for felons or miscreants. That could not be further from the truth. I have a considerable amount of sympathy for them and for the reasons why they are driven to crime. Too often, it is because of the lives that they are unfortunately obliged to lead with a lot of unemployment, a lot of poverty in many places, broken homes, parental control very often being absent by virtue of the fact that it is necessary for both parents to go out to work, and so on. Unfortunately this leads to petty crime to start with and, if they get away with it, to serious crime. I sympathise with and understand the social problems related to violent crime.
However, having said that, I honestly do not believe, and I do not believe that a great number in this country believe, that the soft treatment of determined and dangerous felons, such as we have tried in the past out of humanity, Christianity, moral feelings and so on, has worked. It has not worked. It has failed. They have pretty dramatic punishments in the Middle East. For instance, you can get your right hand cut off if you steal. But I do not think there are many left-handed people walking about in Baghdad or in Saudi Arabia. It jolly well works. People know that if they put their hand into the fire it will get burnt. It is as simple as that. It is no good saying "Try it and see." It works. Therefore it must be right to have effective punishment available for use on people who are not going to abide by the laws of the land.
I am not a lawyer and never will be a lawyer. I am not half intelligent enough. But I believe that so many things in life are done not so much by knowledge and fear as by basic common sense. Common sense amounts to 80 per cent. of our way of life. We approach problems in a common sense way rather than through theoretical or professional knowledge. The two must go together but nine times out of 10 common sense does, or should, prevail.
We have a duty in our society to protect the members of our society against the felons and the perpetrators of crime. All too often, it appears, on the face of it, that we are more concerned with the effect on the perpetrators of violent crime than with either the victims or, worse still, the potential victims. That one should consider very carefully indeed.
We are told by the crime prevention department that the ethos of their policy is to encourage the public into policing itself. It is, in their own words, the only way forward. What on earth do they mean by that? I think that we have to look at the relevance in the supplement to the Sunday Telegraph and it will tell you. I find that horrifying. There was a man who defended himself with his sword against a break-in or perhaps an attempted murder. He succeeded. He inflicted bodily injury upon the perpetrator of the
392
crime. However, it was not the person who broke in and threatened to assault him who carried the rap; it was the man who was defending himself with his sword. I stand open to correction on this point, but I believe that the man asked in court what else he could have done. He said that society had let him down. He said: "I am told to defend myself. What can I do?"
We have all heard of such cases. I shall tell the Committee of one more such case. There was a case of a man who owned a pistol who heard a burglar breaking into his neighbour's house. His neighbour had asked him to keep an eye on the property as he was going away on holiday for a fortnight. One night there was a break-in at the next door house. The chap came out. He saw the fellow coming out of the window through which he had broken into the house and he ran across the lawn. He got hold of his pistol and said: "Stop or I'll shoot!" The burglar did not stop so he did shoot. He did not shoot at the burglar. He shot wide of him but unfortunately the bullet hit a stone, ricochetted 10 to 15 yards off the stone and hit the burglar in the thigh. I am not sure what the neighbour is doing at the moment. He may have received a gaol sentence, but he certainly carried the rap for that. I find that case absolutely offensive. It is not right and it is time that that kind of thing was corrected. As Gilbert said: "Let the punishment fit the crime." And so we must.
Overcrowded prisons have been a source of concern here on several occasions, and quite rightly so. It is perfectly deplorable to have three or four or however many it is to a cell. But how many people need to go to prison? Far too many people get sent to prison when it does them no good at all. We send people to prison, it is hoped. to correct them, but what on earth is the point of sending a man to prison for 10 years or so when he will just have a gut reaction against the society that sent him there? Look at the crime that he may have committed. Here I must choose my words rather carefully because I do not wish to appear to be criticising in any way a prison sentence that has recently been meted out. However, the case that I have in mind is relevant and it may illustrate the point I am trying to make. Last week a well-known person was sent to prison for evasion of tax, notwithstanding the fact that the tax had been repaid. I asked myself then what on earth anybody had achieved by that. Yes indeed the person concerned had transgressed the law, and yes indeed punishment must be firmly meted out. But what is the point of sending that person to prison?
If the person concerned had the means and the wherewithal which we are given to understand he had to pay a very substantial fine—and I mean by substantial a couple of million pounds—then why not impose that fine? The taxpayer of this country would not then have the burden of keeping a person in prison. The Exchequer would benefit by a very substantial amount of money and the person concerned could continue to provide the expertise and knowledge of his experience in the industry in which he is particularly well versed. On that basis everybody would gain. What has happened? Everybody has lost. I am therefore saying that we are wrong to overcrowd prisons by sending people to

393
prison when there are other ways proverbially of killing the cow. We must mete out a punishment to fit the crime.
I wish to make it quite clear that I understand that when terrible things happen such as the Hungerford and Bristol massacres some of us tend to get rather carried away with emotion and say: "Right. We must do this, that and the other. We must bring back hanging." However, I tabled these amendments long before those events. They reflect what has always been my personal conviction.
I have received many letters from a cross-section of all manner of people in the country since tabling the amendments. I have them in the Lobby. Not one of those letters suggests that any of the proposals under discussion is anything but correct. I am surprised at that. I should have expected one or two to have something to say, but not one has. The letters came from prison doctors, clerks to magistrates' courts and all manner of other people—a good cross-section of the community. They all said the same: "Get on with it, we must get something done, we cannot go on like this."
It is wrong that Parliament as a whole appears to continue to turn a deaf ear to what is known to be the opinion of the vast majority. In relation to the death penalty, I understand that the figure is about 73 per cent. That said, it would indeed be wrong for Parliament as a whole in carrying out is duty to pay attention entirely to what the majority of people wish. One cannot very well elect a committee of a club and then expect the members of the club always to dictate to the committee how to run the club's affairs. The committee members are elected to get on with it. However, there are times when those who run the affairs of the club, as it were, should take heed of what is a very large undercurrent of opinion.
The House of Lords fortunately enjoys an enormous amount of support and respect in the country, which I believe could be somewhat dented if we were to fail to take note of the strong feeling of the majority of people in the country.
I am told—I will be corrected by noble and learned Lords—that these measures will have an effect on the jury system and that no jury would convict. I cannot agree with that. The word "may", not "shall", is used in the amendments. This is not mandatory; it is up to the judge to decide. Secondly, several procedures must be gone through once a conviction has been obtained and the jury has convicted. There is the appeal stage and ultimately, in consideration of the death penalty, an appeal to the Home Secretary and the royal pardon. I do not understand why a jury should fail to convict if it felt that a very severe punishment was to be meted out. If defence counsel, realising that too many people in the jury were quite willing to see the accused on conviction suffer the ultimate, started to use the privilege and right to object to certain jurymen sitting, that in effect would be an abuse of the privilege granted to the defence. If privileges are to be abused for purely cosmetic purposes, that would raise the wider question whether the right and privilege should be retained. I do not see why the jury system should be affected.
I am told that we are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the provisions and
394
terms of which some of the amendments may transgress. If that is the case, so be it. The European Court of Human Rights was established in about 1947, shortly after the war. I am given to understand that the object was to ensure that a holocaust such as that experienced at the hands of Nazi Germany could and should never happen again, and rightly so. However, like so many of these things it has been used as a vehicle for complaint by nearly all and sundry who feel that they have had a physical or mental injury done to them. That in itself tends to diminish the whole value of the European Court of Human Rights if that is what has happened.
We are a sovereign nation. We are a signatory to that convention. If we are not allowed to maintain law and order as we think fit, then we cannot continue to be members of that convention. I am sorry, but it is a fact. I do not see why this country should be run by people in another country. I am an Englishman; I am not a European and I think that goes for a great number of other people.
That is just a few general observations and perhaps we can turn specifically to Amendment No. 48, which concerns rendering people impotent. We have far too many cases of rape in the country, as we all know. Unfortunately, there have been times when offenders have been sent to prison and that in itself is absolutely right. They have served their time and upon the decision of the doctor or the professional concerned he is considered a fit person to leave prison and to lead a new life. I would agree with that entirely and I hope very much that it corrects him.
The fact is that there have been many occasions when this offence has happened again. If a man has been punished once for this heinous offence and served the sentence in full and then he is released and commits the offence again, perfectly obviously it is not much use meting out the same punishment as before, because it is not going to work.
There is only one way of making sure that a rapist does not do it again and that is to make him incapable of doing so. Originally, I had in mind that we might set off down the route of castration but since then I have read with great interest a recent case where the Recorder of London ordered a man who had been convicted of such a crime—I think at that man's request—to have an injection of a drug which had been developed by ICI. The substance is really for the curing of cancer or some form of cancer. The knock-on or side effect of the drug is to render the user incapable of committing that sort of offence. If that is a fact, then it is not impossible for our scientists to produce a substance which would have the effect of making a potential rapist pretty safe. That is the sole purpose of this amendment.
Again the word is "may". It is not mandatory. It is for the judge to consider whether it should be imposed for a repeated offence. I think that is perfectly fair. Do it once, right, but the second time you get the ultimate. This must be right.
I am told that psychiatrists have suggested that if a person who is inclined that way is rendered impotent it might turn him into something worse, such as a murderer. If that is the case then I think I speak for a lot of ladies in the land in saying that I would far rather walk into a field of steers than a field

395
of bulls. On that remark I beg leave to move the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: We on this side of the Committee reject all the noble Viscount's proposals, and we do not intend to dignify them by any further discussion.
Lord Wigoder: We on these Benches also reject these proposals. On Amendment No. 48, I confess myself in some doubt as to whether, if the power were given to a court compulsorily to castrate an offender, that would be entirely consistent with the right to silence.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think any Members of the Committee, as I understand it, go along with my noble friend Lord Mountgarret on the general detail of his four amendments. However, as Amendment No. 49 raises—perhaps not in quite the right form—the question of capital punishment, I
should like to address a few words under that amendment. I confess to being a wholly unrepentant believer in capital punishment for murder. I suppose I am affected, as we all are, by our experiences. I had the responsibility towards the end of the war, at a military government court in Italy, of imposing capital punishment in cases where I was responsible both for the finding of guilt and for the decision on sentence, subject only to the confirmation of the army commander; which, as a matter of history, was never withheld. I therefore speak on a subject of which I have had some direct experience.
Equally, it so happens that in 1969 I wound up in another place for those who wished to retain capital punishment when the experimental period was terminated and capital punishment was finally abolished. Some members of the Committee may say that the fact that I wound up for retention may be a partial explanation for that decision! However, on that occasion we took with us into the Lobby the greater part of the Conservative Party in the House, which then of course was in the minority. Although we did not take into the Lobby its then Leader, I am glad to recall that we did take with us our present Leader, and our present Prime Minister.
I have one complaint arising from that debate. We were then told, as we were told regularly at that time, that the alternative on conviction for murder was going to be life imprisonment. It was argued with some plausibility that true life imprisonment—being detained in prison until one dies—is in a way as formidable a penalty as is execution. However, life imprisonment no longer means what is says. My noble friend the Minister can no doubt give us figures. However, figures that have already been given make it clear that unless someone sentenced to life imprisonment dies fairly young from natural causes he rarely serves his life in prison. Such people are almost certainly released either on the advice of the Parole Board or otherwise before their lives have ended. Therefore, what were told at that time was the effective alternative deterrent to execution—true life imprisonment—has not been, and is not, being generally applied.
396
That takes one to the question of whether capital punishment is a real and effective deterrent. It is perhaps significant that in Singapore and Malaysia, where their governments and parliaments have been deeply troubled by the drug traffic and where, in both cases, resolute and determined governments have set upon wiping it out, capital punishment for drug trafficking is part of the law of both states and the sentences are often carried out. Experience seems to suggest that the deterrent effect is working.
We come therefore to the question whether in our country we can give greater protection to the lives of innocent people by reintroducing capital punishment as a penalty for murder. I recall the days when I was in practice at the Bar before the war, when capital punishment was of course law, that I defended a young man who was a member of a violent gang of burglars. I learnt that the prosecution intended to introduce in cross-examination a suggestion that they had been armed. I thought it my duty to see in the cells my young client and to ask him whether that was so. He showed genuine horror. He said, "Lor, guv'nor, no. If I had a gun which went off and killed somebody, I would swing for it wouldn't I?". I confirmed to him that his view of the law was correct.
It is indeed significant that one who was a member of a gang set on involving itself in serious crime and risking therefore long terms of imprisonment was deterred from carrying a gun by the knowledge that if he carried one and it went off, he would incur a penalty quite different from and from his point of view far more alarming and disturbing than even a long term of imprisonment.
I suggest that capital punishment, properly applied as a penalty for the crime of murder, is a deterrent, and that if it were restored it would protect some innocent lives. No one of course can say how many people would be deterred and what effect it would have on the murder rate, but that it would have some effect and thereby protect at any rate some innocent people, seems difficult to dispute.
Given therefore that we have a serious level of violent crime, including murder and other crimes which lead to murder, as in the Fordingbridge case, it surely is a matter for consideration whether we should not restore capital punishment in appropriate cases.
To those of the Committee who use, and I am sure that no one in this place does, the silly phrase, "You cannot put back the clock", I should reply that practically all of us did so on Sunday morning. Of course we can reverse a decision if it was a mistake. That has been done in this context in certain states in the United States which abolished capital punishment and because they judged that the effect of that had been harmful to the safety of their citizens restored it. Even if the Government were convinced that this was right, and from what I have said there are at any rate some members of the Government who I am sure believe that it would be, the problem would be to legislate it through this place and still more perhaps through another place.
I would therefore say in all seriousness that if ever there were a case for a referendum this is the subject matter. I am not a great admirer of referenda. I think that on the whole they undermine the parliamentary

397
process and parliamentary authority. This subject has always been treated in another place as a matter of individual conscience on which the Whips are not put and therefore each individual Member must vote according to his conscience. That perhaps distinguishes it from other matters more appropriately dealt with by Parliament and suggests that it might be interesting and helpful to take the views of our fellow countrymen. It is a matter after all that concerns the community as a whole and if, as may well be the case, a referendum established that a majority of our fellow countrymen—
Lord Tordoff: May I—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am in the middle of a sentence.—wished to restore capital punishment to the statute book, then that would be a matter for Parliament to consider. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder where within the amendments that we are considering the question of a referendum is referred to. I do not recall the noble Lord at Second Reading raising this matter although he may have done so. If he wishes to put down an amendment on referenda he is at liberty to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that kind permission. I invite his attention to the fact that the second amendment, Amendment No. 49, put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, proposes the restoration of capital punishment. In discussing whether we wish it to be restored, it is surely highly relevant to consider the conditions, the mechanism, the way in which that would be done. I am surprised that someone on the Liberal Benches—who is almost always frightfully keen on referenda and so on—gets so very tetchy about it when it is suggested on this subject.
Baroness Seear: We are not keen on referenda. The only referenda we have supported are on constitutional matters. This is not a constitutional matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No. This is probably not a constitutional matter. As the noble Baroness knows, it is a matter which when it has been discussed in another place, and no doubt here, it has been said that it is outwith the normal run of party political, Government and Opposition, discussion and a matter of individual conscience for Members. That distinguishes it from almost every other subject. I am surprised at the touchiness of the Liberal Benches on this. It is surely highly relevant to consider on what conditions it might be looked into further.
I suggest that it might help the conscience of individual Members of another place if they knew,
398
firmly and authoritatively, what the views of our fellow countrymen were; whether our people as a whole—the electorate whom Parliament represents—did or did not wish us to see a restoration of capital punishment. I cannot see for the life of me why those who believe in democracy, who believe that the will of the people should prevail, should get so very excited when it is suggested that, admittedly in a matter outwith the ordinary party political framework, this should not be done.
Lord Tordoff: May I—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I shall not give way again because the intervention of the noble Lord on the previous occasion was not very constructive as, when he studies Hansard in the morning, he will no doubt reflect.
I have made the point. I still strongly take the view that this is a matter on which there should be a referendum. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret has not adopted the phrase, so often loosely used, of the restoration of hanging. Hanging was a barbarous method of execution and I believe had a good deal to do with the success of the abolitionists because people were understandably horrified and disgusted by the method. My noble friend suggests an injection in his amendment. I do not think that there could be much difficulty in finding a method that would be painless and would not have the unpleasant and squalid concomitants that undoubtedly helped to prejudice hanging.
As I tried to tell your Lordships, on the basis of at least a little experience, I hold some strong views on this subject. Although it is perfectly easy to shoot down most of my noble friend's amendments—and I certainly do not go along with a great many of the proposals as they stand—I thought it right to take this opportunity to put on record my view that we shall not deal with this aspect of serious crime until we restore capital punishment in one form or another, and to suggest that the step towards it should be the one which seems so to annoy theLiberal Party: that of holding a referendum to find out what the people want.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the Committee will not agree that, before a serious Committee of Parliament, this is quite the wrong way in which to discuss the issue of capital punishment. This has been debated in the other place. So far as I remember it has been debated in this Chamber. There is a decision of Parliament. In my view to deal with a matter of this kind by way of an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill is quite offensive to the common sense of the Committee. That is why I so profoundly agreed with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones when he said that we on this side—I had hoped that it was the universal view of the Committee—should reject these proposals in totality and that indeed they should not be dignified by any further debate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It is very easy for the noble Lord, taking the view he does, to take that line. We are however discussing a criminal justice Bill, in the

399
context of which our criminal law as such is under inquiry. I did not put down these amendments. Indeed I do not think that I would have done so, but my noble friend did. The issue is before us. I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating what I said a moment ago. It is an issue that a great many of our fellow countrymen believe to be a probable improvement to our criminal law and it seems to me quite wrong to say that the Upper House of Parliament should not debate it because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, does not like it. That is arrogating to the Opposition Front Bench a position to which they are not entitled.
Lord Monson: Unlike the noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, I do not automatically take a lofty, elitist, scornful view of these amendments. On the contrary, although I have many criticisms of detail I sympathise with the concern of the noble Viscount over these evil crimes and what is to be done about the growing incidence of them. This concern undoubtedly echoes majority opinion in the country.
I do not think that anybody can seriously deny that.
Turning to the detail of Amendment No. 48—which is the amendment we are discussing as we have not yet come to Amendment No. 49 dealing with capital punishment—I have to point out to the noble Lord, at the risk of being somewhat basic, that to render a man impotent does not take away his sexual desire. If a potential rapist is rendered impotent and is therefore unable to achieve penetration, in his frustration he may very well murder the unfortunate woman, which is surely a far worse fate. For that reason I do not think that Amendment No. 48 can seriously be considered.
The Earl of Caithness: It is right for me to say at this stage that I fear I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on his point. The death penalty was discussed in another place during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. If an amendment is down before the Committee it is only right and proper that we discuss it, whatever views we might hold about it.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret has proposed a number of changes to the sentencing powers of the courts. Although he talked generally to all four of his amendments I understand that he moved only Amendment No. 48. My noble friend first proposes that convicted rapists should be rendered impotent at the discretion of the court in addition to or instead of any other penalty. I must first say that we all recognise that rape is a particularly evil crime which causes untold distress to the victims and their families. It is right that the perpetrators of these acts should be severely dealt with, but I cannnot agree that my noble friend has the right solution.
My noble friend recommends rendering impotent by means of what has become known as chemical castration. This is not a cure all for sexual offenders. Individual reactions to drugs vary and they are not universally reliable. They would not necessarily eliminate sexual desire or prevent further attacks by the offender. At worst it could make an offender even more dangerous by blocking the normal physical
400
response to sexual desire, causing him anger and frustration. This could increase the risk of very violent assaults on women, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am sure that that is something that my noble friend would not want. I am not convinced that we should encourage the medical profession to revert to a practice which I believe has been largely rejected, let alone go so far as to put it in statute.
The maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment and it is for the judiciary to decide what penalty to impose within that maximum. The Court of Appeal has, however, given clear guidance to the lower courts that rape will normally call for a substantial prison term. Imprisonment cannot be a wholly satisfactory response to any crime but for these offences it seems to me to be inevitable. This does not mean that sexual offenders cannot receive appropriate medical treatment in prison. But, as I have said, antilibidinal drugs do not always work for various reasons and such treatment would not always be appropriate. That must be a decision for the medical profession, not for the courts. I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful for comments made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, I deprecate the immediate response which my general remarks on the four amendments evoked from Members opposite. I do not think I have ever heard in this Chamber of amendments that have been properly tabled being virtually thrown out before they have even been spoken to properly in detail. Members opposite presumably are speaking on behalf of their party and they made it perfectly clear that they did not even wish to consider evidence of these matters. I find that an affront; I deeply regret it and indeed deeply resent it. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said much the same thing but I may not have picked it up quite so well. I think it is wrong not to consider these matters and I am grateful for the support given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in that respect. On the specific subject of Amendment No. 48, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No!
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Sentence of death.
—(1) Where a person is convicted—

(a) of the murder of a police officer in the course of or for the purpose of resisting that officer, or of assisting or avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody; or

(b) of murder committed during detention in legal custody (including the murder of any other person so detained); or

(c) of murder in the course of or in furtherance of an offence under section 8, 9 or 10 of the Theft Act 1968; or

(d) or murder committed after a previous conviction for murder,

the sentence or judgment pronounced or awarded may be death.
(2) Sentence under subsection (1) above shall be carried out by the injection of a substance to be determined by a panel of persons appointed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Viscount said: In view of the lateness of the hour—and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made considerable reference to this subject—it may be the wish of the Committee that I do not move the amendment at this stage. However, I wish to reserve my position when we come to Report stage and may wish to return to it then.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.

  OZONE LAYER DEPLETION
  OZONE LAYER DEPLETION
  HEATING ALLOWANCES
  HEATING ALLOWANCES
  RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR THE OLD: COSTS
  RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR THE OLD: COSTS
  NYE BEVAN LODGE: REPORT
  NYE BEVAN LODGE: REPORT
  SOVIET DEVELOPMENT AID
  SOVIET DEVELOPMENT AID
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS' UNPAID PARKING FINES
  DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS' UNPAID PARKING FINES
  SPONSORSHIP: TAX TREATMENT
  SPONSORSHIP: TAX TREATMENT
  TAXATION OF MARRIED PERSONS
  TAXATION OF MARRIED PERSONS
  BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL
  BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL
  PRISON STAFF/INMATE RATIOS
  PRISON STAFF/INMATE RATIOS
  LONDON EMERGENCY CENTRE PROPOSALS
  LONDON EMERGENCY CENTRE PROPOSALS
  AFFRAY CASE: PROPOSAL FOR EXERCISE OF ROYAL PREROGATIVE
  AFFRAY CASE: PROPOSAL FOR EXERCISE OF ROYAL PREROGATIVE