Sitting of 29 October 1987

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

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 5 November.

    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate [23 July.]
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 5 November.

    HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 November.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 November.

    ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Privatisation
    Mr. Nellistasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the likely proceeds to the Exchequer of the privatisation of water authorities in England and Wales.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): While the Government regularly publish plans for total privatisation proceeds over the next three years, they never reveal estimates for individual privatisations.
    Mr. Nellist: Given the inevitable collapse of share prices, thus prefacing the third world economic recession, what guarantees can the Minister give that the water industry will not go the same way as British Petroleum —undervalued and underpriced—and lead to a second massive flop in the Government's attempt at electoral bribery?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently described an Opposition Member as "the surviving dinosaur". I can see that that hon. Gentleman was not alone.
    Mr. Nellist: Just answer the question.
    Mr. Lamont: I will answer the question. Water is not due to be privatised for several years. I am confident that when that moment arrives we will obtain good value for the taxpayer. We intend to press ahead with our privatisation programme, especially with regard to the water industry. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have some very important questions on the Order Paper. We are not helped by interruptions from sedentary positions.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Severn-Trent water authority, which includes Coventry, is one of the authorities most excitedly in favour of privatisation?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is quite right. It has been made clear that the management of the water authorities strongly support the Government's plans.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister have a reserve price valuation for the water industry? Does he agree that if in his estimation that price is not reached it would be in the best interests of the nation to withdraw from the sale of water?
    Mr. Lamont: As yet, the main legislation with regard to the water industry has not gone through the House. It is due in the 1988–89 Session. In asking questions about the precise price of the flotation of the water indusdry the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps for the first time, being a little quick.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does not the prospect of water privatisation offer the chance to millions of investors of share ownership which market uncertainty may have denied them in British Petroleum? Is this not an excellent prospect for the British people?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is quite right. There are good industrial arguments for its privatisation. It is abundantly clear that there is ample room for improvements in efficiency in the water industry.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister exempt Wales? The measure has no friends in Wales. It will be unpopular and it will not work. Will he understand that we need Wales to be exempted and that we need major investment for the creation of manufacturing jobs, not this charter for speculation?
    Mr. Lamont: The answer is no. There has been a substantial increase in investment in the water industry. Under this Government it has gone up by over 30 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government it fell by 35 per cent.

    Disposable Incomes
    Mr. Forthasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth in real personal disposable incomes over the past year.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): In the year to the second quarter of 1987, real personal disposable incomes rose by 3½ per cent.
    Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging answer. Will he compare the recent growth in disposable incomes with that under the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The real take-home pay of a man on average earnings with a family of two children has risen by 22 per cent. under this Government. Under the previous Labour Government it rose by just½ per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in 1979 an average of 45 per cent. of real disposable income was payable in debt? By 1986 that had risen to 73 per cent. and this year is hitting 80 per cent.? Is that not one of the main contributory factors to the crash on Wall street, the stock exchange and everywhere else?
    Mr. Lilley: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read Tribune more closely and he will see that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said:
    "There is a lot of evidence to show that most of the borrowing is being done not by individuals but by companies."

    Private Shareholding
    Mr. Fallonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures on the extent of private shareholding in the United Kingdom.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): At the beginning of this year the number of shareholders in the United Kingdom stood at 8½ million, almost three times the 1979 figure.
    Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to announce whether the sale of BP will proceed?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. Most of the procedures that I described to the House on Tuesday have now been completed, but I have yet to receive the Bank of England's assessment in response to the joint approach to the Bank this morning by the Treasury and Rothschild on behalf of
    436
    the underwriters. I hope to make my decision later today and I will, of course, be glad to inform the House of that decision in whatever way is convenient.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Will the Chancellor give the House details of the blazing row which took place yesterday between the Treasury and the Americans over the BP flotation? Will he say whether he expects repercussions on Wall street? If the flotation is not 100 per cent. successful, who will be to blame?
    Mr. Lawson: There was no blazing row. The causation flows in the opposite direction to that indicated by the hon. Gentleman. It was not the BP flotation that caused the crash of Wall street; it was the slide on Wall street that led to the gross under-subscription of the BP flotation.
    Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of opposing wider share ownership, we should set about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not read.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend note the wise words of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), one of the Opposition spokesmen on the subject—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not quote either, please. The hon. Gentleman should paraphrase.
    Mr. Hind: To paraphrase, the hon. Gentleman said that the country should come to terms with share ownership and regard it as a good thing. Perhaps Labour Members should take his advice on the subject.
    Mr. Lawson: Although my hon. Friend is unable to quote the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I am able to do so. It is one of the few privileges afforded to Ministers. Among other things, he said:
    "We should take share ownership seriously as a means of spreading economic power and giving people a stake in the enterprise they work for."
    I quite agree.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it not clear that the BP share sale has been a total flop and that, in addition, it will be deeply damaging to the interests of BP? Will not BP now be saddled with the most unwilling shareholders in financial history? Should not the Government take an opportunity to announce that the sale is to be abandoned permanently, not to excuse underwriters but to protect the interests of Britain's greatest company? Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to confirm—he denied it on Tuesday—that he has to pay for the rights issue from BP at 330p and that he will have to hand over the money tomorrow?
    Mr. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the last point on Tuesday and, as he knows, he is wrong. On the other matters concerning BP, I think that it would be right for me to make no further comment until I have decided whether or not the sale should go ahead.
    Mr. Colvin: Bearing in mind the traditional links between the Labour party and the trade union movement, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the concern shown by Opposition Members about the state of the stock market? Surely that is living proof—if it were required—that there are now more shareholders than trade union members in this country.
    Mr. Lawson: I do, indeed, welcome the interest in the stock market shown by Opposition Members. I hope that as time goes by it will become a more educated interest.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer that proportion of total Exchequer revenue in each of the past three years has been attributable to the proceeds of privatisation.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Privatisation proceeds have risen from 2·1 per cent. of total Consolidated Fund revenues in 1984–85 to 3·9 per cent. in 1986–87.
    Mr. Lloyd: Do not those figures reveal the dilemma in which the country has been placed by the Government's stupidity? On one hand, the Chancellor depends on privatisation to fund public expenditure. On the other, with the Americans breathing down his neck and threatening not to fund further privatisations, the Chancellor knows very well that the BP issue will create real difficulties for the Government in future privatisations. The Government's incompetence has led them into great difficulties.
    Mr. Lamont: Privatisation has made a useful contribution to revenues. The Government's estimates will be published in the usual way in the autumn statement. On BP, it would be extremely unwise if I added anything to what my right hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the BP share offer goes ahead—as Conservative Members confidently expect it to, and as the vast majority of hon. Members believe it should—the taxpayer will have got an extremely good deal? Has my right hon. friend heard any criticisms from Opposition Members in the past few weeks to the effect that all that we are trying to achieve with this privatisation is to line the pockets of our friends in the City?
    Mr. Lamont: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks, as, I am sure, have Opposition Members. It is, of course, true that if the sale proceeds, the proceeds of £7 billion will be fully realised.
    Mr. Beith: Is not that fact weighing too heavily with the Chancellor? Is it not rather profligate to treat capital asset sales as a means of funding current expenditure? For the rest of the day, will the right hon. Gentleman take care to attach more priority to the need to encourage wider share ownership, rather than discouraging it by his treatment of investors who applied early for BP shares?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems to want to have it both ways. On one hand he says that we should not privatise, while on the other he says that we should pursue a policy of wider share ownership.
    Mr. Beith: No.
    Mr. Lamont: I am sorry, but that is how it appears to me and to most of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend tell us which Administration was the first to consider it right to sell shares in BP, whether the shares were underwritten and at what price they were sold?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is revealing a closely guarded secret, which is that in 1977 the Labour Government decided to dispose of BP shares at a price equivalent today to 100p per share. The great difference is that whereas we want to pursue an objective of wider
    438
    share ownership, Labour did not. The Labour Government did it purely and simply because they wanted to raise money.

    Unemployment costs
    Mr. Battleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside region.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Battle: Even taking into account the minimal drop in unemployment figures in areas such as mine, is the Chancellor not prepared to accept that, if lost taxes are added to benefits paid in areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside, the cost of unemployment to the Exchequer is more than £6,000 per person? Is he not prepared to accept that that works out at nearly £900 per household and that —[Interruption] —if the total for the whole country is worked out —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question.
    Mr. Battle: It cannot be heard because of the interruptions. Is the Chancellor not prepared to accept that the total cost to Britain is £19 billion, which is more than the Government are prepared to spend on the Health Service and that both the unemployed and the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    Mr. Major: During the hon. Gentleman's question unemployment undoubtedly fell rather more, for he will be aware that, both nationally and in his constituency, unemployment is now falling quite rapidly.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that growth and investment in manufacturing in Yorkshire and Humberside are contributing significantly to a reduction in unemployment?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The growth in the economy generally, including manufacturing, has been startling this year. It has made a material contribution to jobs.

    Council of Ministers (Monetary Matters)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about European monetary matters.
    Mr. Lawson: These matters were discussed at the informal meeting of the Community Finance Ministers which I attended in Denmark last month.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European monetary system is a powerful factor in monetary stability in these uncertain times?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. He has made that point on a number of occasions. The EMS has contributed greatly to exchange rate stability among the countries that are members of that grouping. We are now engaged in a more ambitious attempt at a wider degree of exchange rate stability, involving not merely European currencies but sterling the dollar and the yen, within the context of the Louvre agreement.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Will the Chancellor confirm that he will not enter into discussions calling for the United Kingdom to join the European monetary system at this critical time, because such membership would restrict the United Kingdom's right to vary its interest rates?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct on his last point. He will see that member countries of the European monetary system vary their interest rates from time to time and have a considerable ability so to do.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of interest rates.
    Mr. Fatchettased the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Lawson: Bank base rates are 9½ per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: The Chancellor continually states that this country has a strong, sound economy. Does he agree that that is also true of West Germany and Japan? Why are our interest rates 3·5 per cent. and 6 per cent. higher than theirs? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that lower interest rates would give our industry and economy a much needed boost? Will he therefore substantially reduce interest rates now?
    Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I reduced interest rates only last week. As for comparisons with Germany and Japan, I would make two points. First, although the rate of inflation is low in this country, in Germany and Japan it is pretty close to zero. That, of course, enables them to have lower interest rates. Secondly, the strength of the British economy is indicated by matters which I should have thought were important to the hon. Gentleman: we have the fastest rate of economic growth and the fastest decline in unemployment of all the major nations.
    Mr. Fatchett: Further to that reply, when British industry is faced with historically and comparatively high interest rates in real terms, why has the Chancellor not taken the advice of British industry — the CBI, for instance—and reduced interest rates? If he did so, he would protect the real economy and jobs in British industry.
    Mr. Lawson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the CBI is content with the conduct of British economic policy under this Government. At the time of the election it was scared stiff that there might be a change of Government, leading to the disastrous economic policies of the Labour party.
    Mr. Latham: Although my right hon. Friend will prudently decide the matter, will he confirm that the conditions which required a rise in interest rates in August no longer obtain?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend the courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that, although it may be helpful for interest rates to be reduced, British industry is more bullish and optimistic than it has been for 15 years?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is clearly correct. The point that he raised was shown in a series of surveys by the CBI, the most recent of which was published only this week. Of course, one of the things about which British industry is confident, quite apart from the Government's general economic policies, is the fact that we now have a period of much greater stability in exchange rates than we had in the past. It is true that, in recent days, as a result of the financial problems in the United States, there has been some pressure on the dollar, but I believe that, despite that, we can secure a greater degree of stability in exchange rates—we must seek to do that—than we have had for many years.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Chancellor will know that, despite last week's 0·5 per cent. cut in base rates, interest rates have been at an unprecedentedly high level throughout the lifetime of the Government. Now that the Government have abandoned monetarism, which was the supposed reason for that level, why does he not take this opportunity to stop dithering, cut interest rates, help industry, business and mortgage holders by doing so, and also help to calm the markets?
    Mr. Lawson: I shall see to it that interest rates are at whatever level is appropriate in the conditions. As for this Government's record compared with that of the last Labour Government, I have to tell the House that bank base rates, which are now 9½ per cent., were 12 per cent. when we inherited the conduct of this country's government from the Labour party.
    Mr. McCrindle: If, as now seems likely, we are heading for a reduction in interest rates—welcome though that may be in many ways — is my right hon. Friend concerned that, in turn, it may also lead to an increase in the availability of credit? As some commentators believe that that is already at a particularly high level, has he any steps in mind to control it?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the general buoyancy of financial conditions some little while back. That was one of the main reasons why I thought it right to increase interest rates by a point on 6 August. However, since then, particularly in the events of the past fortnight, I think that it is clear that the rather frothy state of the financial markets has come to an end. There is now likely to be a dampening effect on economic activity, including credit activity. Therefore, it was appropriate to reduce interest rates by ½ per cent. last week. The conditions to which my hon. Friend referred are indeed different from what they were earlier.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Patchettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning total for 1987–88 and 1988–89.
    Ms. Ruddockasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning total for 1987–88 and 1988–89.
    Mr. Major: Following the decisions taken by the Cabinet this morning, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be presenting his autumn statement to the House next Tuesday.
    Mr. Patchett: If the Government's revenue is rising so fast, will the Minister explain why the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 cannot be implemented because of a lack of funds?
    Mr. Major: The Act of 1986 was originally passed upon the premise that it would be brought into action over a period. A part of that Act was brought into operation earlier this year.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister agree with the advice that the CBI gave recently, which was, and I want to quote accurately—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Unfortunately the hon. Lady cannot do that.
    Ms. Ruddock: The advice of the CBI was that, if business is to have the infrastructure that it needs to reduce its costs, cuts in public expenditure should be reversed. Does the Minister agree with that?
    Mr. Major: With great respect to the hon. Lady, that is not the advice of the CBI. I suggest that she reads what the CBI had to say about the economy just a few days ago. It was very confident.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm —[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am not.
    Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that the management of public expenditure has been one of the success stories of the Government and in no small measure has enabled the nation to create 1 million new jobs since 1983?
    Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that prudent control of public expenditure in recent years by the Government, and proper management of the Government debt, has led to the country being in a strong economic position? Will he confirm that he is able to give some help to the American President in his tackling of the American public sector borrowing requirement?
    Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm that, first, strong control of public expenditure has been a significant feature of the Government's economic policy. The strength of our economy over recent years shows how wise that has been, and I think that that may be particularly so at present. As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that the American President can do without advice from me.
    Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give an assurance that when he and the Chancellor are preparing the autumn statement they will consult their counterparts abroad? This is because, if President Reagan manages to cut the federal deficit by $23 billion next year, this will have a powerful deflationary effect on the world economy. It could reduce the United States rate of growth by 1993 by 10 per cent. below its trend rate and raise European unemployment to 24 million by that year. Why does the Chancellor not admit that the real budget needed is a budget to expand the European economy, and that himself, Chancellor Kohl and M. Chirac should be doing that, thereby increasing United States export trade and sustaining the dollar?
    Mr. Major: I think I might usefully remind the hon. Gentleman that we have the fastest rate of growth in the industrialised world. He might just care to bear that in
    442
    mind. As for the remainder of his remarks, I am not entirely sure that that arises on the subject of public expenditure in this country.
    Mr. McLoughlin: When the Chancellor publishes his statement, will he draw the attention of the House and the country to public expenditure levels in 1978 compared with those today, bearing in mind that that was the time of the Lib-Lab pact? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are able to spend as much as we do on the public services because of the way in which the economy has been run by the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. In recent years there has been a very substantial increase in resources for the Health Service, the education service and law and order, and a substantial increase in capital spending compared with the substantial cuts into which the Labour Government led us between 1974 and 1979.

    Privatisation
    Mr. McAvoyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the proceeds from privatisation sales in 1987–88.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: An estimate of the proceeds of privatisation will be published as usual in the autumn statement on Tuesday.
    Mr. McAvoy: In launching the BP offer the Minister said that it was yet another step on the road to popular capitalism. Given that more than 8 million prospectuses have been issued but only 200,000 people have applied for shares, does he agree that that road is a dead end?
    Mr. Lamont: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is to make a statement later, and as the matter is still being considered, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything at this stage.
    Mr. Dickens: Following the great success of privatisation, cleaner emissions from power stations and lead-free petrol, is not my right hon. Friend missing a rare opportunity to privatise fresh air?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend always wishes to push our programme further forward, but I think that that matter would require a little consideration.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Financial Secretary explain, first, why he has wasted £20 million of public money advertising the sale of BP shares which no one wants to buy? Will he confirm that the estimated cost of the advertising is £100 per successful applicant? Does he recall his statement on 25 September that he expected the sale to make a further major contribution to extending share ownership, and his statement of 15 October that the sale would be another step on the road to mass popular capitalism in this country? Given that no one wants the BP shares, and that 40 per cent. of shareholders have already got out of the privatised companies, what is left of popular capitalism now?
    Mr. Lamont: A full statement of the cost of the sale will be laid before the House in the usual way. Clearly, some of the costs are not known at this stage. That will be fully explained to the House.
    With regard to the advertising cost, I make no apology for that. We wanted to advertise the sale and to spread

    443
    share ownership. It would have been quite wrong not to make that attempt at that time and as the market then appeared.
    As for the quotations that the hon. Gentleman gave, I am naturally extremely sad that this will not be an opportunity to widen share ownership. Nevertheless, widening share ownership is a wholly admirable and laudable aim and we are determined to go on with it.

    Company Investment (Rates of Return)
    Mr. Jackasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the net real rate of return in the company sector.
    Mr. Lilley: The net real rate of return of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies in 1986 is estimated to have been 8·9 per cent. This is the highest level of prifitability recorded since 1973.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that that excellent result shows the fallacy of criticism of our economic policies by the Labour Benches and the validity of the recent CBI report on the economy? Does he further agree that the key to those good results is the retention of profits within companies, occasioned by the Government's successive reductions in corporation tax?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of profit, which is the lifeblood of industry and stimulates its pulse and fuels its investment. He is also right to point to the fact that investment is rising along with profitability, and the DTI survey shows investment intentions up 8 per cent. this year and next.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that, despite the good figures that he gives for manufacturing industry, there is 7 per cent. less investment in manufacturing industry now than there was in 1979, and that areas such as the one that I represent still have enormous problems in building up industry? Despite all the wonders of which the Minister tells us, there is still less investment in manufacturing now, and the prospect of even less in the future.
    Mr. Lilley: I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes the improvement in profitability. Unfortunately, she is not unanimously joined in that by other members of her party. She will be pleased to know that profitability in manufacturing has also increased substantially, and that is the pre-condition for growing investment. Profitability in manufacturing is also at a record figure, only previously achieved in 1973.

    Invisible Earnings
    Mr. Redwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of invisible earnings in the United Kingdom; and how it compares with the levels five and 10 years ago.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The United Kingdom's invisibles surplus, which was £2·1 billion in 1977 and £.1·7 billion in 1982, is estimated to have been 0·7 billion in the year to mid-1987. That is the largest invisibles surplus of any country in the world.
    Mr. Redwood: What surprisingly good figures the Financial Secretary has produced. Does he agree that those figures show that the service industries are important
    444
    generators of jobs, wealth and income, and that they are an important part of industrial recovery, because strong services help industries?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As regards his point about employment, 2 million people are now employed in financial services and 1½ million in hotels and catering — an important part of the invisible earnings industry. That amounts to 15 per cent. of total employment, demonstrating that, exactly as my hon. Friend says, the invisibles are making an enormous contribution to recovery in this country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are not profits from insider dealing a form of invisible earning? Why did the stock exchange surveillance department refuse to give me the names of the 30 people who speculated in Matthew Brown shares on the day before the S and N bid was announced? Why cannot those names be made public so that the general public will know who were the criminals who broke the law?
    Mr. Lamont: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gives me the details that he wants and I shall investigate them. I do not know to what he is referring.

    International Monetary Fund
    Mr. Cashasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington.
    Mr. Lawson: Considerable progress was made on a wide range of issues. The Louvre agreement was reaffirmed, and I set out ways in which a more orderly system of managed floating of exchange rates could be developed. There was continued emphasis on the special needs of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries, including further discussion of both my initiative to ease the burden of their bilateral official debts and the parallel proposal by the IMF to enlarge the concessional structural adjustment facility. There was also full support for an early and substantial increase in the capital of the World Bank.
    Mr. Cash: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he also confirm that it displays a significant contrast between the craven position that existed under the Labour Government in 1978, when they had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund, and the position now, when the fund seeks and takes advice from the Government — from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Lawson: In answer to the remarks that my hon. Friend makes, I am glad to say that one of the benefits of the strong economy that we now have and the wide respect in which we now stand throughout the world is that we are able to play a major part in the international financial discussions that go on, both as between the industrialised countries and in helping the poorest and most heavily indebted countries. That is indeed a striking contrast to the Labour Government, when it was they who had to go for assistance.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that if he presses ahead with his proposals for debt relief for the poorest African countries, including interest relief for those that are not large debtors, he will have our support?
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and that of his party. I am glad to say that I have also secured much more substantial support from other quarters as well.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Westland plc
    Mr. DalyelI asked the Prime Minister what has been the total Government contract expenditure committed to Westland since January 1986.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The work of Westland Helicopters Ltd. for the Ministry of Defence in support of the existing helicopter fleet is worth some £60 million per annum. Negotiations are nearing completion for eight new Sea Kings, worth over £25 million. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 9 April that orders worth over £300 million are planned for an initial batch of 25 utility version EH101 and 16 Lynx helicopters.
    Mr. Dalyell: On 27 January, at column 657, the right hon. Lady assured my. hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that she did not know about the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over the disclosure until after the inquiry had reported. Will she confirm that Mr. Charles Powell did his duty as a civil servant and kept the Prime Minister fully informed about the disclosure?
    The Prime Minister: The question that the hon. Gentleman has put on the Order Paper is about Government contract expenditure committed to Westland since January 1986. On the other matters, I have answered in detail and stand by what I have said.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that the first flight of the prototype of the Anglo-Italian EH101 augurs well for that aeroplane, as was the case with the collaborative Puma, Lynx and Gazelle before it? For the future of Westland, is it not also important that we should take part in expanding European participation in space, as Westland Aerospace has an important contribution to make in that area, which is of great significance for British industry?
    The Prime Minister: We hope that the development of the EH 101 will proceed satisfactorily so that the orders can be fully and properly negotiated. With regard to work on space, I have nothing to add to what I said previously. As my hon. Friend is aware, we give a subscription of about £100 million to the European Space Agency. At present we simply could not do any more than that because the amount of taxpayers' money that goes to research and development is very considerable. At present, further money is coming from the private sector. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Can we concentrate on these questions and not on those who are wearing fancy dress?

    Engagements
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I attended the memorial service for
    446
    Lord Soames at Westminster abbey. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister recall that during her visit to Scotland last month she made the absurd claim that there was little if any popular demand for a devolved Scottish Parliament or Assembly. If the right hon. Lady is still stubbornly refusing to accept the fact that at the general election she was resoundingly rejected by 76 per cent. of Scottish voters who all voted for parties committed to some form of Scottish Assembly, will she now consider putting her claim to the test by, for example, having a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will remember the occasion of a previous referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland. Many of us on both sides of the House believe that an Assembly such as the hon. Gentleman and others propose would be the first step towards separatism, which would not be popular in many quarters.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she upholds the principle of free speech, and that that principle is not restricted to those with Marxist views, but applies also to those opposed to such views?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. We see a great deal of free speech during Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the financial markets at home and abroad are unstable, and when Britain has one of the highest real interest rates of all the developed countries, why do the Government not use their power to secure significant cuts in interest rates, rather than an inconsequential 0·5 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for judgment, which has to be made at the time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to understand that several factors are necessary in combination to deal with the present position. First, we need a decision on the United States budget deficit. That is perhaps the most important single factor, and I welcome the talks that President Reagan is holding with Congrees about cutting the deficit, because early and decisive action on that is vital. Measures beyond anything previously envisaged, in both scale and content, would do more than anything else to bring back confidence.
    We are entirely prepared to play our part, in concert with other nations such as Germany and Japan, to consider further matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make his decision on the BP issue later today. Those three developments would be very effective if we could arrange for them to take place fairly close together.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is those very three matters that argue so strongly for a substantial cut in interest rates, especially when such a cut would aid President Reagan's efforts to stabilise his external deficit. They would also ease the downward pressure on markets, increase our international competitiveness and cut costs for British industry and British households. British real interest rates are now 53 per cent. higher than those in Japan, and 25 per cent. higher than those in Germany. As the Prime Minister says, this is a time for judgment, and that judgment should be a big cut in interest rates.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made a reduction in interest rates of 0·5 per cent, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have said what I believe to be the most important factor for the return of confidence in the markets, but I feel that it will be more effective if we make our decisions in accordance with it and achieve as much co-operation internationally as possible.
    Mr. Kinnock: No one will quarrel with the argument for international co-operation, but does what the Prime Minister has just said mean that we must wait for what she calls a return of confidence before we get the cut in interest rates that the economy truly needs?
    The Prime Minister: It means that I expect the right hon. Gentleman to know that decisions on interest rates cannot be announced to the House of Commons during Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House what fee the underwriters of the BP issue agreed to accept in payment for the risk that they agreed to take?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made his own point. As he knows, I cannot say anything further about the BP issue. The procedures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set before the House on Tuesday are well under way, but they are not yet completed. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to announce his decision today.
    Mr. Maclennan: With regard to the response of the international finance markets to the United States deficit problems—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Maclennan: —is the Prime Minister prepared to encourage the German and Japanese Finance Ministers urgently to relax their fiscal policies to assist the United States in the process of reducing its budget deficit?
    The Prime Minister: I have said already that I think that co-operation is important. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in regular touch with his opposite numbers in both the United States and Germany, and in Europe in general.
    Mr. Budgen: Amid all this talk of international co-operation, will my right hon. Friend remind all Governments of her renowned scepticism of the European monetary system and of her view that attempts by Governments to control exchange rates are extremely expensive and in the end impossible?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend reminds the House very effectively of the view that we have taken about the European monetary system. That view has not changed. I believe, however, that the Louvre accord has been of very considerable value, especially in recent weeks.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Duffy: Following the Prime Minister's exchanges with my right hon. Friend, is she aware that we have been waiting for at least three years for Washington to correct its budgetary deficit? Does she not think that the best earnest on behalf of international confidence would be for
    448
    someone to promote initiatives, and preferably leadership, on behalf of international financial stability and an easing of credit? Is the Prime Minister prepared to take such a step, or is she content to see Thatcherism eventually equated with Reaganomics?
    The Prime Minister: May I remind the hon. Gentleman —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Yes, we have free speech in this House, too. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members have been urging us to follow the deficit policy of the United States and to increase it? They have urged us to do that, both in this House and in speeches outside. Only now are they beginning to realise that the policy of sound money that we have followed is the one that has kept sterling strong throughout this crisis.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is well aware that the parks and farms of Kent are now covered in very heavy fallen trees. Will she consider using her prestige to call together the many organisations that use the countryside to consider the possibility of creating a properly organised voluntary programme to help to clear up the beleaguered south-east of England?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that the part of the country that my hon. Friend represents was particularly badly hit by the storm and that many trees were damaged and lost. I know of his interest in voluntary work. I understand that the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers is already looking at what volunteers can do, with local authorities, to help. It is in close touch with the Countryside Commission's Task Force Trees. I am sure that we shall be able to get some very useful work done, both in clearing and in replanting trees.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of the Government's obsession with internal trade union matters, why is there not to be a postal ballot of all Conservative members in the country to decide who should be party chairman? In view of the difficulty of finding someone to do the job, is the right hon. Lady aware that her old mate, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is very keen and very anxious to carry out that job? Is he on the short-list?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether I am answerable from the Dispatch Box for Conservative party matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the chairman of a voluntary party is elected, but I shall not follow the example of the Labour party by taking on the office of chairman of Conservative Central Office myself.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that an isolated rural school in South Armagh —Cladymore primary school — has been closed by the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland, not only against the wishes of the parents, but against the unanimous decision of the regional education authority? Is she aware that that regional education authority is controlled, not by elected persons, but by the nominees of her Minister? Does she understand that such decisions alienate the people of Northern Ireland from the present dictatorial system of Government by the Northern Ireland Office, and will she at least consider the introduction of

    449
    some democratic control and answerability in matters of local government such as education, health and social services?
    The Prime Minister: The strict answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is, no, I was not aware, but, of
    450
    course, I will inquire. He cast doubt on direct rule, but I do not think that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland would agree. They welcome it as the best possible thing in the circumstances. A major Education Bill will be brought before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to table some amendments to it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER —Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.

TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Employment Bill.

Motions on data protection orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.

THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Economic Consequences of the Collapse of the Financial Markets".

FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER — Debate on Government initiatives on crime prevention on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Licensing Bill.

[Debate on 3 November:

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 1987.

Draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987.

Draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987.

Draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 1987].

Mr. Kinnock: The Leader of the House will recall that on Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hoped to be able to reach a conclusion in his negotiations with the BP issue underwriters and the Bank of England by Thursday. May we have a categorical assurance that the Chancellor will tell the House what that conclusion is since it is vital that the House of Commons is among the first to know? When will that take place today? Will the right hon. Gentleman make available Government time early next week for a debate on the Chancellor's decision on the BP share issue?
As the proposed changes in housing benefit and income support will damage the interests of at least 7 million people, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity to debate those changes in a full day's debate on each of the relevant regulations? The Leader of the House will recall the Conservative party's election pledge:
"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
Is he aware that yesterday, in a long radio interview, the Secretary of State for Social Services refused to guarantee that that pledge would be honoured? May we have a statement next week to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House and families throughout the country that child benefit will continue to be paid as a universal, non-means tested benefit paid direct to mothers?
The right hon. Gentleman will know of the Policy Studies Institute report on inequality in employment in
452
Northern Ireland. The Government will be publishing a White Paper early in the new year. Will the right hon Gentleman ensure that the House has an opportunity for an early debate so that hon. Members can make known their opinions on that subject?
In view of the continued and justified disquiet on both sides of the House and in the scientific and industrial communities about the Government's refusal to make a proper commitment to the European civil space research programme, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister of Trade and Industry comes here next week to make a full statement about the matter instead of contenting himself with the inadequate answers that he gave during Trade and Industry questions yesterday?
In light of the welcome news this morning, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on his success in preventing the constitutional impropriety that would have arisen had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry become the chairman of the Conservative party? I hope that the Leader of the House will not take it amiss if I offer the suggestion that as a reward on behalf of the country for his considerable endeavours he should get that job himself?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure whether that is a reward. However, I am very content with the job that I have at present. I will not add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about the chairman of the party, which is entirely a matter for her.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he hopes to make a decision on the BP share issue later today. He will, of course be glad to inform the House in whatever way is convenient and at the earliest opportunity. I do not believe that we can settle exactly when he will make the announcement until we know that he has made his decision. We will have discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Kinnock: Will there be an oral statement?
Mr. Wakeham: The Chancellor is very very willing to make an oral statement if that can be arranged.
I believe that many of the points about social security raised by the right hon. Gentleman could be dealt with in the debate on the Social Security Bill next week. The best way to deal with the orders would be by discussions through the usual channels.
In response to the right hon. Gentleman's points about child benefit, I do not believe that there is any misunderstanding about the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. That matter may be referred to in next week's debate on the Social Security Bill, if necessary.
I have taken on board the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the inequality of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. I will refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
There is nothing further that I can usefully add to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry yesterday in answer to questions or to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said except that I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will find an opportunity to report to the House after the ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 November.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not a little strange that in a modern society succession to the throne is by the eldest male heir rather than by the most suitable heir? Would it not be better if it were either male or female—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can ask a question of that kind.
Mr. Marlow: Is it possible to ask a question about succession to the Government?
Mr. Speaker: We will move to the next question.
Mr. Harry Ewing: With regard to the very important matter of the BP share issue, the Leader of the House has just said that the Chancellor will make his decision known in whatever way he thinks appropriate. Does the Leader of the House, who was present throughout Question Time, recall that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not once but three times, gave a commitment that the Chancellor would make a statement to the House, and that the Prime Minister also gave an undertaking that the Chancellor would make a statement to the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that the appropriate procedure in this instance would be for a statement to be made to the House on the Chancellor's decision about the BP share issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I made it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the Chancellor would be glad to inform the House in whatever way is convenient to the House at the earliest opportunity. If that is an oral statement, the Chancellor will be content to choose that method.
Sir Peter Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend that last week I requested, in the most kindly fashion. that he remember his undertakings? This week may I request him to recall that Procedure Committee reports for over two years are still outstanding and that the House should be given the chance to debate some of them? Does he accept that we should be getting on with that early in this Parliament rather than later?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that first I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was a distinguished Chairman of the Committee in the last Parliament, to come and see me to talk about the outstanding reports so that we could decide the best way to proceed. I think that that would be sensible.
Mr. James Wallace: It may be that in the next week or so we shall have the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on British Airways and British Caledonian. Will the Leader of the House undertake that before the Secretary of State makes a decision on that report the House will have the opportunity to debate its contents?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I can give no such undertaking.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend find time, possibly next week, to discuss the important question of the ritual slaughter of animals? Apart from the cruelty involved, is it not fundamental that the laws of England should apply to everyone equally and that exceptions should not be made?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that hon. Members and many people in the country feel strongly about the issue on both sides of the argument, but I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity of expressing our sympathy to the relatives of those who died yesterday in the tragic accident on the M61 motorway in Lancashire? Will he draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport the desirability of making a statement when major tragedies such as this occur? Will he also advise him of the desirability of conducting automatically an inquiry into such events? An inquiry would take place after an accident at sea, in the air or on the railways. Will the Leader of the House also draw the Secretary of State's attention, without prejudging this incident, to the importance of recognising whether speed was an important factor and to whether the police are able to control high speeds on motorways when repairs are being undertaken?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly draw those points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing our condolences to those bereaved by the tragic accident and in sending the injured our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
The accident is being investigated by the police, and the Department of Transport's vehicle inspectors are examining the vehicles involved. My right hon. Friend will consider all the reports carefully to see what lessons can be learnt.
Mr. John Biffen: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that earlier today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that he might be able to move amendments to the Education Bill? In that context, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will be extended to cover Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I feel embarrassed that before replying I must check my answer to the first question which my right hon. Friend has asked me.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: In connection with the horrible accident on the M61 near my constituency, will the Leader of the House impress upon the Secretary of State for Transport the importance of giving us a chance to debate road safety with a view to making constructive suggestions such as that which I made to him after the last horrible motorway accident about enforcing speed limits and the excessive number and weight of lorries on motorways which cause an enormous number of roadworks which are inherently dangerous?
Mr. Wakeham: I have taken on board what the hon. Lady has said. I will ensure that the matter is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend note that yesterday no fewer than four pro-life private Members' Bills were presented? If, as is possible, all four are deliberately talked out rather than voted down, will my right hon. Friend consider, for future purposes the possibility of Government time being given to an abortion reform Bill, as happened in 1967?
Mr. Wakeham: It is best to wait until the Bills are debated in the House and see how we get on. I should not want to give any intimation that the Government are likely to depart from their normal practice of not giving additional time for debating private Members' Bills.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when, at long last, the Scottish Select Committee will be formed? Will he guarantee that the matter will not be left to one side as other Select Committees are formed, and that all the Scottish parties will be represented on the Committee? Does he agree that the present impasse is no way to treat important Scottish business?
Mr. Wakeham: I want to get on with the formation of all the Select Committees as fast as possible. Considerable progress has been made through the usual channels and I am hopeful that the Committee of Selection will consider these matters very shortly. Who goes on the Committees is a matter for the Committee of Selection and not for me.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make a statement to the House about the imminent takeover of Matthew Brown Brewery, in the north-west of England, by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? That takeover will neither be in the interests of the consumer nor for the betterment of the reputation of the brewing industry, in which I have had a long, though not vested, interest. Will he ensure that this unique matter, which has arisen due to the problems on the stock market, is brought before the House and that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announces that it will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I shall refer it to him later today.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that those of us who want reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act are reliant on a private Member's Bill that is shortly to come before the House? May I press him on the same subject on which I pressed him last week? When can we debate the report of the Procedure Committee? If the House resolves to carry the report, will extra time be given to that private Member's Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said to the hon. Gentleman last week.
Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend will have read that next week the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is likely to report to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the results of its deliberations on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian. Since that merger would make British Airways ten times larger than the rest of the British scheduled air carriers put together, will the House be consulted before a final decision is made?
Mr. Wakeham: The matter will be decided by my right hon. and noble Friend in accordance with his statutory duties. I do not think that I can say anything further at this stage.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: With regard to next Wednesday's Bill about urban development corporations, may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a report in The Independent today concerning exchanges of correspondence between the auditors of the London Docklands development corporation and its replies? In view of the fact that, if my memory serves me correctly, the auditors were appointed by the Secretary of
456
State for the Environment, or at least that he is responsible for the operations of the LDDC, will he ensure, through his right hon. Friend, that all the documents relating to this matter are laid before the House before the debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend and do what I can to meet the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.
Sir John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an early debate on the problems of the hosiery and textile industry? As he knows, it faces many problems relating to the cheap imports that are flooding in from abroad and restricted access to markets in the United States and elsewhere. A debate on this urgent subject is overdue.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, but I cannot say when a debate will take place. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Does the Leader of the House intend to proceed, as he said last week, with a debate on the growing crisis in the health services, particularly in the west midlands and Wolverhampton, where thousands of lives are at risk? I impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that we should have a debate very soon.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is an important matter and that hon. Members on both sides of the House have comments to make on it. However, I cannot promise a debate at the Dispatch Box today.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate, or at least a statement, soon on the appalling problems and genuine needs of haemophiliac AIDS victims and their families?
Mr. Wakeham: I will refer the matter to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House take steps to arrange a debate on the need for equal opportunities in employment in Northern Ireland, so that the people of Northern Ireland can be represented fully in the House by their hon. Members? Until such time as we move to a federal situation, can we ensure that every region of the kingdom is treated equally in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: If the answer the hon. Gentleman wants is that procedures in the House are likely to change in the near future, I cannot give him an encouraging reply. However, discussions can certainly continue and when there is a general agreement no doubt we can do something.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend said to the Leader of the Opposition, whose interest in the matter is relatively new, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 187 on Britain's role in space, which is signed by 48 of his right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House is convinced that an expanded British space programme would mobilise technical and scientific skills within the nation to a common purpose of great long-term strategic and industrial importance for the United Kingdom; believes that the creative and engineering genius of the British people should find expression in the major role in Europe's joint space effort; and urges Her Majesty's

457
Government to support the plans of the British National Space Centre for the United Kingdom to pursue an enlarged space programme wholly within Britain's technological and financial resources and fully commensurate with those of her leading European Space Agency partners.]
It would be good if the Government would listen to the views of Select Committee Chairmen, former Ministers and rapporteurs at the Council of Europe and the Western European Union who understand about such matters before our Ministers go to The Hague to the European Space Agency Council.
Mr. Wakeham: I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know has long been interested in these matters, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry will take on board all the points that have been made before he attends the ministerial meeting on 9 and 10 November.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Mindful of the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on Tuesday concerning the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the statements of the Leader of the House this afternoon, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that those Conservative Members who are showing a reluctance to serve on the Committee will be reminded firmly of their obligations to the House and the people of Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, in all friendliness, that I do not believe that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies need any lectures from him on conducting their duties as Members of Parliament.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the televising of Parliament? If there is a positive vote, the public will be able to see demonstrations such as the two childish and ill-co-ordinated demonstrations that the Opposition have put on this week. Arguments having left them, they are reduced to demonstrating. With television, the public will be able to see that only the Conservative party has any real arguments to put forward to them.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for bringing television cameras into the Chamber. I have given an undertaking that there will be a debate, and I stick by that.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the Shelter report entitled "Pits and Mortar" regarding the sale of former National Coal Board houses and the several thousand still owned by the board which are being sold off to absentee landlords? Will he also arrange for a debate on the coal industry in view of the large number of closures threatened by the board in the past few weeks? Perhaps he can get one of his people to explain why pits are being threatened with closure having sustained a temporary loss of a few million pounds, when the Government have been straining every nerve and fibre in the past few days to save the stock exchange which has lost £100 billion.
Mr. Wakeham: Although I shall not be able to arrange a debate for next week, I have no doubt that the hon.
458
Gentleman will find an opportunity to make his points, and we shall find an opportunity of putting the correct position.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging for Ministers to come to the House from time to time to make statements about some of the nationalised organisations and the conduct of their chairmen? For example, British Rail is considering the purchase of 100 locomotives costing £100 million from America, when Britain has lost thousands and thousands of engineering jobs. Should not Ministers be more accountable to the House on such policies?
Mr. Wakeham: I reject any suggestion that my right hon. Friend has not fully discharged his duty to the House. However, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to him.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Let me focus the attention of the Leader of the House on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). Would it be proper if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs were frozen while other Select Committees came forward from the Committee of Selection? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will not be allowed to drift into suspended animation?
Mr. Wakeham: I have no desire to see the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs drift into suspended animation. As with all other Select Committees, I would like it to get on. However, these are matters for the House and not for me.
Mr. Greville Janner: When can we have a debate on war crimes matters and, in particular, on the Government's failure, after many months, to complete investigations concerning 16 people known to be living in this country and alleged to be serious war criminals? They include Antonas Gecas, who lives in Edinburgh. May we debate, too, the Government's incredible refusal to release documents concerning Barbie, though his trial has ended, and Waldheim, even though there can be no conceivable risk to intelligence or security matters now that the documents have been in the Public Record Office for 40 years?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what was said to the hon. and learned Gentleman very recently. However, I know of his deep concern and interest, and I know that if he has evidence, as opposed to allegations, he will ensure that it is made known in the right quarters.
Mr. John Home Robertson: As the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) a few minutes ago suggests that she has learnt nothing and forgotten everything about recent election results in Scotland, and as a properly constituted Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could perhaps apprise the Government of the real interests of the Scottish people, is the Leader of the House aware that the majority party in Scotland would be quite willing to take up its place on the Select Committee even if the minority parties, among which I include the Conservative party, are not?
Mr. Wakeham: I propose that the House should deal with these matters in the traditional way, and I fear that that means rejecting the hon. Gentleman's advice.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the cash crisis at Edinburgh's hospitals—in particular, the Royal Edinburgh hospital in Morningside where the doctors, nurses and other staff are under tremendous pressure, and where patients are suffering considerable hardship and their relatives considerable distress and worry?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add to what I have already said about a debate on the Health Service. However, the hon. Gentleman's subject seems to be a perfectly reasonable one to raise in an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: rose —
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member, may I say that if he wishes to take part in the serious business of the House he should come here appropriately dressed? He was a distinguished chairman of the Greater London council and I do not think that he would then have approved of such attire.
Mr. Banks: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that you are most fetchingly dressed yourself? I might add that my dress. represents a perfectly legitimate peaceful protest and I hope that the House will always tolerate peaceful protests.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 179 concerning Britain, the Commonwealth and the African National Congress.
[That this House welcomes the positive developments which have taken place in the recent period in relations between the African National Congress and a range of representative opinion in Britain, including the British Government, as highlighted by the meetings between the President of the African National Congress and the Foreign Secretary, the Opposition, the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress and representatives of British industry; recognises that these contacts reflect the central role which the African National Congress will play in any resolution of the conflict in South Africa which was one of
460
the key conclusions of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group; therefore deeply regrets the statement of the Prime Minister in Vancouver in which she described the African National Congress as a 'typical terrorist organisation'; believes that this is a totally false description of the African National Congress; and believes that such a statement can only damage relations between Britain and the black majority in South Africa as well as with the rest of Africa and the Commonwealth.]
The Prime Minister's statement that the ANC is a terrorist organisation gave great offence to every Commonwealth Head of Government. If the right hon. Lady believes that the ANC is a terrorist organisation, is she considering expelling its representatives from London? If she is not, will she apologise? I understand that today the United Democratic Front in South Africa has broken off all diplomatic relations with the British Government until an apology is made. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that undertaking, will he arrange for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the position in South Africa and the ANC
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise an early debate on South Africa, but it is, of course, a subject to which we shall return from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sometimes says things that are uncomfortable to listeners, but that does not mean that her comments are not perfectly justified and true.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    LICENSING
    Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Moore and Mr. Douglas Hogg presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Points of Order
4 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reference was made before the recess to people wearing different forms of attire, especially during the summer. I asked what was and what was not permitted. It is high time that the cheap remarks about people engaged in a peaceful protest ended. Those people have been drawing attention to the forms of brutality used against the ANC by not only Botha and his regime but hon. Members. Those remarks should end, especially because last night many Members in the Chamber were dressed like penguins. I make no special point, except that I do not regard that form of dress as normal. Some would say that it was fancy dress. There are people in the House who, for reasons of custom, have sat at the Table—and here I am including you, Mr. Speaker—in what some would describe as kinky clothes. There are people who come to the Chamber dressed as barristers. I make no special point about this. We tolerate it. But it is high time we reconsidered what all those people, including you, Sir, do. We should consider the views of those of my hon. Friends who have decided to do something on behalf of people outside the Chamber who are fighting for their lives.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it would help. I am concerned, as I think is the whole House, about the dignity of Parliament. I am not against peaceful demonstration, but we proceed here in the Chamber by words rather than by demonstration.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. It is clear to the House that Her Majesty's Stationery Office is encountering difficulties with its new machinery. Last night, early-day motions were tabled and accepted by the Table Office, not least one, of which I was the principal sponsor, which opposes the British Airways-British Caledonian merger. My early-day motion has not appeared on today's Order Paper.
This is not the first time since the House reassembled after the summer recess that early-day motions have either
462
not appeared or appeared with incorrect spelling and names inadequately added, although those names were presented to and accepted by the Table Office. Even when the early-day motions have been printed, the total shown has not tallied with the number of names appended to them.
May we please have your protection, Mr. Speaker, so that correct early-day motions tabled within the time limits imposed to enable them to appear on the Order Paper the following day and accepted by the Table Office do appear on the Order Paper? Will you give an assurance that the problems of the Table Office will be overcome shortly and that the Order Paper will return to normal?
Mr. Speaker: Her Majesty's Stationery Office is not a Department of the House. I have been in touch with the Minister responsible for it to draw his attention to the fact that the printing of our Order Paper has been very unsatisfactory. I have his assurance that he will do what he can to correct the problem. I understand that the difficulty is concerned with new technology which is being run in. We hope that it will rapidly improve.
Mr. Winnick: This Parliament has many connections—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not called the hon Member. Is this an intervention or a point of order?
Mr. Winnick: It is a point of order, Sir, which is devoted to a previous point, but not concerning dress.
This Parliament has many connections with the Commonwealth, as you know better than most. Would not be appropriate to make the point, when delegations come here and we send representatives to Commonwealth countries, that one does not accept that the ANC is a terrorist organisation? It came into existence in 1911 and for most of its life was totally opposed to acts of violence. The ANC resorted to violence when the South African authorities decided that they would not allow constitutional advance —
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the very point that I was seeking to make earlier. In this House we proceed by argument rather than by demonstration. The hon. Member's point is plainly a matter of argument and one that it is legitimate to use in debate.

Orders of the Day

  Scottish Development Agency Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October] That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to select the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. The Government brought on this important business after 10 o'clock last Wednesday night. The Bill did not begin its proceedings in the House until 11.15 pm. It is unacceptable and offensive to the Opposition that a Bill of such importance, dealing with the extremely important Scottish Development Agency, should be put down for debate at that time. If the Government felt that the Bill would somehow slip through with the minimum of debate, they obviously completely misjudged the position. I say to Ministers and to those who arrange the business that Opposition Members will not accept that type of behaviour in dealing with Scottish business.
  The Minister of State introduced the Bill last week with a rather dreary and complacent speech. I do not complain about that because I did not expect anything else. Important points were made by the Opposition, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). We expect full answers today to last week's and today's points. There can be no excuse for not getting full answers because the Minister has had a whole week to consider our points.
  We understand that the Government originally intended to have a debate on the Scottish economy today. We are told that, because we exercised our legitimate right to discuss the Bill at some length, that debate is to be taken from us, as though we have to rely on the Government's favour to have debates on important matters affecting Scotland. We are supposed to behave in an acceptable way when considering Scottish business or, as a kind of punishment, we shall not be allowed to have the legitimate debate on the Scottish economy and other aspects to which we are entitled. That is unacceptable. If the Government believe that they can deal in that way with Scottish business, they will face considerable difficulties for a good deal longer than just this Session.
  Of course I welcome the Bill and the fact that it increases the Scottish Development Agency's borrowing limit. Opposition Members appreciate the contribution that the SDA has made to the Scottish economy since the agency was established 12 years ago. I pay tribute to the work done by George Mathewson as chief executive of the agency. He did a remarkable job. We wish him well in his new appointment. I know Mr. Ian Robertson well, and I welcome him to his new appointment and wish him well in his work for the agency.
  The agency has done a considerable job for the Scottish economy. Of course, it cannot provide all the answers to Scotland's economic problems. When the Bill which established the agency was before the House, the Government of the day—I piloted the Bill through the
  464
  House—were criticised for making exaggerated claims about the agency. I did not make exaggerated claims about the agency, nor did I claim that Scotland's economic problems could be solved by the establishment of the agency. That was never our intention. We believed that if the tide was running generally in favour of the Scottish economy, the SDA would be able to make a considerable contribution to the solution of Scottish economic problems. We also believed that, even if the tide was running against the Scottish economy, as it has been doing for the past eight years or so, the agency would nevertheless be able to do an extremely useful job for Scotland.
  In a sense, the boot is now on the other foot. Conservative Members voted against the Second Reading of the Bill to establish the Scottish Development Agency. Whenever a problem arises in Scotland, they are only too happy to rush to the SDA for assistance. Indeed, in some respects, they regard the agency as the only effective instrument for solving Scotland's economic problems. That view was not taken by the Labour Government when they established the agency. Nevertheless, over the years, the agency has proved itself to be extremely important.
  Given that, by itself, the agency cannot solve all our problems, it is essential to consider the economic background against which it operates. We are faced with the immediate problem of the collapse of the stock exchange and financial markets in other parts of the world. I do not know what the Chancellor will say in his statement today about the BP privatisation, but I hope that no action will be taken by the Government to bail out underwriters. I would not shed a single tear if some underwriters were severely punished by the collapse of the stock market. In fact, it would be a salutory lesson to them and many other hangers-on in the City, many of whom have made a killing in recent years from previous privatisation measures.
  Of course, there is also the problem of what a continuation of the financial crisis in the world's stock markets will mean for the real economy in this country and elsewhere. We must be concerned about the developments of the past few days and their long-term effects on the British economy and other economies.
  We have seen a failure of major industrial nations effectively to tackle major economic problems on a world scale. I do not know whether it is due to the ineptitude of the present United States Administration, the failure of the Japanese Government to act quickly and strongly to reverse some trends in their trading positions, or whether it is the abject failure of the British Government to provide any lead, either domestically or in the world setting. We are paying a high price for the failure to take essential steps to deal with world economic problems over the past few years.
  Another factor is the appallingly high unemployment in Scotland at present. I acknowledge that there has been some improvement over recent months, but there has been nothing like the improvement that the published figures would have us believe. I have not believed the published figures on Scottish unemployment for a considerable time. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has produced some telling statistics and arguments on the matter. The unemployment unit still calculates unemployment figures on the basis that operated before the Government made various adjustments to massage the figures. I shall quote figures from my

  465
  constituency to demonstrate the extent to which published figures now hide the reality of unemployment in Scotland. In Govan, in July, the published figures were 6,092, and the unemployment unit's figures were 7,439. The difference is between 19·6 per cent. on the published figures and 23·9 per cent. on the real figures. Of course, I am sorry to say that the male unemployment rate in my constituency is considerably higher than that. There are parts of my constituency in which the male unemployment rate is about 50 per cent. That is absolutely appalling. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for bringing the Scottish economy to such a low level.
  Scottish employment and manufacturing are in a fragile state. Our manufacturing base has been eroded. We now face a severe manufacturing balance of trade deficit. Of course, much of it has been hidden from view because of the uncovenanted benefit of North sea oil which, in any case, is a wasting asset.
  Against that background, one would have thought that any Government who are sensitive to the real needs of Scotland and other areas that suffer from high unemployment would bump up—not reduce—their regional assistance. The changes in regional aid that were introduced on 29 November 1984 are having catastrophic effects on the amount of Scottish regional development grant. Of course, to some extent, the position was masked by transitional arrangements. The impact of the November 1984 changes is only now beginning to be felt. On the Government's own figures, in 1986–87, Scottish regional development grant was paid to the extent of £170 million, although there was some deferment of payment. The Government's provision for 1987–88 is only £69 million. This year, when the changes are beginning to bite in the fullest way, we shall suffer a reduction of £100 million in regional development grants to Scottish industry. That must be an extremely serious factor for Scottish industry.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is threatening us with a further review of regional aid; that is, a further downward review, not one to remedy some of the disastrous effects of the changes that have already taken place. Presumably, since he will not be chairman of the Conservative party, he will have even more time on his hands further to damage the Scottish economy. That is all part of the background.
  Mr. William McKelvey: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the CBI said this week that it is seriously concerned that the trend that has been evident in Scotland—that more jobs are being lost than being gained—will continue for many years?
  Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that. I have noted that the CBI on the whole is well disposed to Government economic policies but that even it recognises the disastrous effects those policies have had on unemployment and the continuing danger that unemployment will worsen, rather than improve. That is all part of the background against which we have to consider the SDA, the Bill and the Government's attitude towards the SDA over the past few years.
  We expect answers from the Minister on all the points we have made about regional aid. We do not want anodyne assurances that nothing will happen or that, if anything does happen, it will be for the best. We have had those assurances before. When the Government were
  466
  elected in 1979 one of the first things they did was to slash regional aid. After the 1983 election there was a further reduction and it appears that we shall have the same again.
  Against that background, one would have thought that any Government or Secretary of State concerned with the health of the Scottish economy would increase the budget available to the SDA, which is the one instrument that is available to the Government to pick up some of the pieces created by their economic and financial policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden pointed out last week, in recent years the Government's commitment to the SDA, even in terms of its gross budget, in real terms has been reduced, not increased. The grant in aid by the Government to the SDA, according to the 1987 accounts of the SDA, was again reduced in 1986–87 to a figure of £87 million compared with the figure of £91·4 million in 1985–86. Even in this extremely difficult period the SDA budget has been reduced by the Government, and certainly the grant-in-aid to the SDA has been substantially reduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, this is completely unacceptable.
  There is no doubt that the agency could spend additional money effectively and that worthwhile projects are being turned down because of a lack of finance. I am sure that all Labour Members will be able to give examples in their own constituencies of projects being either turned down or the time scale being changed because of the lack of finance. If the Government were serious about their efforts to improve the Scottish economy, they ought to be significantly increasing the budget of the SDA instead of reducing it, not only in real terms but in cash terms
  I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden about the comparatively small proportion of SDA expenditure that is directed to direct industrial investment. I appreciate the point made about direct expenditure attracting significantly greater quantities of private investment. I welcome that because, if spending £1 can produce £10 worth of benefit, it is better to spend that £1 than to spend the whole £10 out of public funds. Nevertheless, this is a disappointing feature of the SDA—expenditure and activities. Compared with the expectations that those of us who set up the agency had, it is certainly disappointing.
  I welcome the emphasis that the SDA has put and continues to put on high technology. In case the Government get too euphoric about what has happened either in Scotland or in the United Kingdom, I point out that if one looks at the problem of import penetration in manufacturing over the past 10 years, the pattern in the high technology industries has been considerably worse than in the low technology industries. Whatever we have done in high technology in Scotland or elsewhere, other countries have done it more successfully. We are losing out in terms of import penetration in high technology, not only to low-cost countries in the far east but to our major industrial competitors. Although I welcome the emphasis on high technology and the efforts that the SDA has successfully made in the area, we should not get too euphoric about this because Britain is falling further and further behind.
  Mr. Bill Walker: In the right hon. Gentleman's comments about high technology, is he including aerospace and avionics? The output from

  467
  aerospace and avionics was £7·75 million last year, of which £4·75 million was exported. How does he equate that with his comments?
  Mr. Milan: I will not weary the House by giving chapter and verse, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what I have said is from an impeccable source, the Midland Bank Review of August 1986. I support the aerospace industry not least because Rolls-Royce is the biggest employer in my constituency. I have always supported Rolls-Royce and the aerospace industry, with rather more enthusiasm than have the Government.
  One criticism I have of the SDA is that quite often it has been rather less enthusiastic than it might have been about some of our older industries. It has rather given the impression that new or high technology is the name of the game. It is important to look after older industries as well as high technology. In terms of high technology providing new jobs in my constituency, that has not compensated for the considerable reduction at Govan Shipbuilders.
  I welcome the success of the GEAR project. I launched the GEAR project, but when I read accounts of it, I wonder whether that is so because so many others claim credit for that. It was launched by the Labour Government and it has been a considerable success. The SDA 1987 annual report made the point that even with GEAR, the east end of Glasgow is still swimming against the tide of high unemployment. Area initiatives, marvellous and important as they are, cannot do the whole job against the background of an economy that is suffering from misguided economic policies, as ours has been since 1979. Of course I would like to see more of them and more money spent on them.
  The Government's commitment to the inner cities is a piece of hypocrisy if ever there was one, considering what has happened about the rate support grant over the past eight years. One cannot achieve anything in the inner cities, however one defines them, without the co-operation of the directly elected local authorities. Initiatives such as GEAR have succeeded because there has been co-operation between the SDA and the elected authority as well as the Scottish Special Housing Association and other agencies.
  Mr. John Maxton: On the subject of inner cities, will my right hon. Friend comment on the Secretary of State's refusal to allow Glasgow district council to borrow £10 million to build the new concert hall?
  Mr. Millan: I have put down a question about that for the next Scottish Question Time but I hope that I shall not need to ask it because the Secretary of State will have come to his senses and given his consent. It is not even additional money. It is absurd to talk about the council rushing into things when it has been trying for 25 years to replace the concert hall. Now that there is a project it is disgraceful for the Government to refuse consent.
  With regard to SDA involvement in my constituency, I very much welcome the Govan initiative. The lead agency is the regional council, but the district council, the SDA and Glasgow Opportunities are also involved and the project is beginning to have a significant impact. I also welcome other initiatives, especially the training of local
  468
  people, because to derive the maximum advantage from local initiatives we must providee additional training for people living in the area.
  I welcome the SDA's help in providing the Govan work space, with what is now the Elder park work space. Govan workspace has brought 430 jobs for my constituents. That is an extremely useful community business. I warmly salute it and the important role played by the SDA. I hope that the agency will take a similar role in other parts of my constituency, including the large dry dock and other facilities left vacant by the Clyde Dock Engineering Company's abandonment of its interest in ship repairs. I hope that important sites such as Linthouse will be developed with a genuine industrial and manufacturing capacity, as I am worried that at a prime riverside site such as Braehead there are proposals for major retail developments dressed up with certain ancillary features but not designed to provide the boost that the area needs.
  I am an enthusiastic supporter of the garden festival. Most of the site is in my constituency, the rest in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). It is shameful, however, for Ministers to make great claims about the festival when the SDA received not a penny of extra funding. The money had to come out of the agency's ordinary budgets which have been reduced in real terms in addition to reductions in cash terms for grant aid.
  The garden festival will last only six months, so the important question is the long-term use of the site and the surrounding area. I hope that the Minister will pursue this with the SDA. The site was sold by the Clyde port authority to Laings the builders, which proposed to build a large number of houses and nothing else. It would be a tragedy if at the end of the festival everything was cleared away and we simply had a large number of new houses there, although it is important that we have some new housing as in many ways it is a prime site and much of it is suitable for housing. There is also a proposal, which I hope will never be abandoned, for a major tourist/leisure facility, but the rest of the land is in the hands of Laings.
  It is my strong view, and I believe that the SDA agrees, that the future development of the site should be worthy of the unique nature of the site and retain as much as possible of the work carried out for the festival. The site must not be given back to Laings merely to build a huge number of houses, however desirable those houses may be. We must have a mixed development on the site and I hope that the Minister will do his bit to ensure that that is achieved.
  Finally, I hope that the footbridge being erected over the Clyde to connect the festival with the Scottish exhibition site will be retained, either at the same location or nearby. It would be scandalous if money was spent on a footbridge which was simply taken away at the end of the festival. I believe that my views are very much shared by the SDA, but I hope that the Government will also play their part.
  I have gone from wider considerations to some important constituency points and I hope that the Minister will provide answers on all those matters. I believe that the SDA has done an excellent job over the years, as the recent review acknowledged. We wish the agency every success in the future but we believe that it could do an even better job with greater commitment, especially financial commitment, from the Government.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In this debate, it is a privilege to follow the hen that laid this particular egg, in the person of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). I am glad to say, however, that we captured the chick young before it set off on its proposed delinquent course and have put it through a good school and to a good purpose. To start from the footbridge over the Clyde, I shall distinguish our approach to the Scottish Development Agency from that of the Opposition. The footbridge about which the right hon. Gentleman is so pleased is possible thanks to the private enterprise capitalist-generated money given to Glasgow as a tribute by Bell's in my constituency. It is not a matter of letting any old taxpayer foot the bill and not caring whose budget or whose services suffer as a result.
  The right hon. Member for Govan, for whom I have the greatest affection, is a chartered accountant, but when he described the Minister's excellent speech as "lacklustre" it was a case of the pebble calling the diamond grey. The thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was essentially that we should give the SDA more money. Personally, I am not keen on accounting or taxation. I understand neither and am reluctant to dabble in them. For an accountant to advise his client that he should spend more money without reference to where it is to come from, who else is to be put in debt and what company is to be bankrupted as a result seems strange professional advice. We are, after all, discussing a Bill that raises the borrowing powers of the Scottish Development Agency from £700 million to £1,200 million. Even in terms of the wealth of the Binns or Paxton estates, that is a lot of money.
  Mr. David Marshall: Fordell.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I shall come to that later: it is relevant to some of my illustrations.
  I was disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—[HON. MEMBERS: "You were asleep."] I can assure hon. Members that I heard the beginning of that speech. I took a conscious decision to become unconscious during the rest of it. It was long and boring. It was not even controversial, because nothing without content can be controversial. Although I have the greatest regard and admiration for the hon. Member for Garscadden, I must say that it was one of his worst, longest and most tedious speeches and clearly one in which he did not believe. As he lay spreadeagled, almost as grey as the right hon. Member for Goven, in the late hours of the night, it was clear that neither the hon. Gentleman's heart nor his mind had been recruited to his case.
  Another thing that I find extremely upsetting is the general negativism of speeches made in the debate by Opposition hon. Members. Putting down 2,000 questions to Ministers is not intended to achieve accurate replies—[Interruption] If the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who is a neurosurgeon, cannot spell "puerile", which contains the same letters as "neuro", there is something greatly wrong with the attitude of Opposition Members.
  I was impressed by my hon. Friend the Minister's description of the Scottish Development Agency as now being an engine of capitalism. I noticed that that phrase was mocked by the hon. Member for Garscadden, as if capitalism were in some way a plague bacillus that was bad
  470
  for employment, for Scotland, for wages and for our prosperity. That is a fundamentally wrong approach. But for capitalism, there would be nothing in Scotland and there would never have been an industrial revolution there. Capitalism is not a plague bacillus to be abhorred; it is a generous tonic and support that is to be encouraged.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Thatcherism."] Yes, we need more Thatcherism in Scotland.
  When the right hon. Member for Govan proposed the Scottish Development Agency, it was to be a sort of tartan mascot of the National Enterprise Board. As the Minister correctly said, it was really intended to be a remote-controlled heather robot for nationalisation, smelling out any part of industry or commerce in Scotland that was moribund and bankrupt and feeding it with vast amounts of public money to keep vital signs of life going, whether the concern in question was good or bad.
  If the same attitude had obtained when iron and steel were being developed in the last century in Scotland, when coal was suddenly seen by Victorian industrialists as viable and railways were being ploughed through the country so that Scotland at last had communications, and if that same attitude had been adopted by the national unions of cartwrights, haywainers and grooms, they would have said that the Labour SDA should keep alive for ever more the transport and industries of the past, regardless of the effect that that might have on development and commerce of the future.
  I shall attempt to draw another analogy. If those who are trying to keep alive the lesser horned butterfly—
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Oligotrophic moss.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Oligotrophic moss, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) correctly recalls. An enormous amount of employment in the north of my constituency—the area is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—was frustrated because the Nature Conservancy Council said that if a fish farm was put in a loch that no-one ever visited, an oligotrophic moss that no one had ever seen, 600 ft below the surface, might be destroyed.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is too modest, for he is a botanist of some repute in Scotland. When he is not concerned with the oligotrophic moss, he scrutinises the Scottish thistle with vigour and passion.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I did not hear the last word, but I am sure that it was an important botanical point.
  If, in the days of dinosaurs, brontosauruses, lepidopterons, sabre-toothed tigers, mammoths and coelacanths, the conservationists—the Opposition—had wanted to stop everything and not allow the development of future species, none of the species they are now trying to protect would ever have developed.
  It is exactly the same with Scottish industry. I come now to the living proof of that fact. Opposition Members constantly campaign on the issue of unemployment and call for more money to be spent to create industry and jobs. Yet, when 4,000 new jobs are to be set up in Clydebank in a private health care centre, they lose their interest in jobs, and their principles fly away. I grieve for the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for whom I have the greatest affection. When the greatest prospect

  471
  for Scotland of having a commercially viable, intentionally placed motor plant for the whole future of Scotland, Europe and the world is mooted, who comes along and frustrates the greatest opportunity that Scottish employment—not only in Dundee, Tayside or Perthshire—has had in a generation? The Trades Union Congress.
  Along come the unions and say, "When it comes to my membership, my self-importance, my petty-mindedness, my Socialist principles, to hell with progress, to hell with Scotland, to hell with employment. We are only interested in ourselves." After all, it is English unions with English components factories that are trying to stop Ford coming to Dundee. If we are going to have nationalist divisions and all the nonsense about devolution, let us be clear about this. The unions would rather have Dundee laid in ruins and ashes than give up their wretched membership and interest. Those are Socialist principles at work, and the Scots should remember it.
  Mr. Tony Favell: The Labour party would do well to heed what my hon. and learned Friend says because English investors take note of what is happening in Dundee. Over the years investors have taken note of what has happened in Liverpool with the trade unions, and there is dereliction as a result. Scotland has a poor reputation for trade union relations. The English saw what happened at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and at Linwood years ago and it is not forgotten. All the good that the SDA has done over the past 10 years will be undone if the Labour party does not encourage the trade unions in Dundeee to buckle down. What is more—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. This is an intervention. It should take the form of a question to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who has the Floor. Will the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) please bring his remarks to a close?
  Mr. Favell: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many parts of England, including my own constituency of Stockport, which has a reputation for engineering that is second to none and where there are excellent industrial relations, would be only too glad to welcome Ford and give an absolute guarantee that there would be no trouble with the unions whatsover?
  Mr. Fairbain: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a lesson of principle of the greatest importance that when it comes allegedly to the sacred cow—as the Labour party presents it—of employment in Scotland, and when it comes to the prosperity of Dundee, the trade unions and the Labour party unite in saying, "Ah, but there is a greater issue—the sanctity of the false creeds and gods of Socialism." If it is a matter of 4,000 jobs in private health care, better no jobs and no private health care. If it is Ford in Dundee with a single-union agreement or Ford in hell with a multi-union agreement, what is the choice? Better to have no Ford in Dundee, no employment and none of the huge spin-off benefits to Dundee, where the waterfront scheme and the Ford scheme are funded and supported by the SDA. Better to have none of them. Let this get home to the Opposition and the people of
  472
  Scotland. When it comes to a choice between the things that they pretend they are fighting for and the tenets that they pretend they are not fighting for, the tenets come first.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to reflect that the last time a Conservative Member made such comments about Dundee—it was the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—the Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce had to remind the hon. Member that comments made in the House are widely read? Thus hon. Members should take great care when they speak to ensure that they do not threaten the well-being of Dundee and Tayside.
  As the hon. Member in whose constituency the plant will be established, I should like to say that the fact that there is a single-union agreement at that plant is the least reason why Ford will be established in Dundee. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he would understand that a financial package was successfully put together by Locate in Scotland to ensure the establishment of the Ford plant in Dundee. Trade unions have rights and they are being taken into account by the TUC disputes committee. It would serve the interests of Scotland and Dundee well if hon. Members on both sides of the House understood that, left those matters to be discussed by that body, and concentrated instead on congratulating the Scottish economy and Locate in Scotland on capturing that plant for Dundee.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment, because he is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. The remarks that are constantly made that would cause foreign companies not to invest in Scotland are always made by Opposition Members. In his speech, the hon. Member for Garscadden constantly said that this is a rotten country with terrible industrial problems. I am saying that the Labour movement, the Labour party and the trades union movement should say, "To hell with these stupid little rules that we have. Let us welcome this magnificent prize that the Government and the SDA have won for us."
  Mr. Bill Walker: With regard to the comments by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), does my hon. and learned Friend recollect that I went to the Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce, after it made its statement, and it later apologised to me because I was telling the truth?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I recollect that, but I shall move on.
  Mr. McKelvey: The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently blames the decline of Scottish industries on the Socialist approach. Does he recall that there were excellent trade union-management agreements in the Massey-Ferguson plant in Kilmarnock, which was debated in the House on many occasions? There was no reason to move the plant from Kilmarnock. We lost 1,800 jobs and the economy of Kilmarnock was almost ruined. The fault lay in international capitalism, because Massey-Ferguson felt that it would make more money by moving the plant to France. Incidentally, that did not work out well, because in the end the jobs were lost in France as well. The people of Kilmarnock see international capitalism as the cause for the loss of jobs.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am absolutely delighted that they do. I understood that it was international capitalism, in the

  473
  form of Ford, which was bringing this mighty prize to Scotland. The Labour party and the trade union movement are trying to stop it coming. I do not see how the workers can blame international capitalism for what is happening in Dundee.
  The SDA has been transformed under the Government, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, into a company that is essentially an investment bank for prospectively or currently successful and expanding industry. Some 80 per cent. of north American firms, when asked where they would locate in Europe, said in Scotland, provided we won the election, and they were right. Four hundred firms were asked what they thought was the most successful. convincing, professional and commercially responsible development agency in Europe. Of those, 80 per cent. said the Scottish Development Agency, as now transformed.
  I find it rather odd that the hon. Member for Garscadden should say:
  "I am delighted to see any signs of growth, movement and inward investment in Scotland, such as Compaq at Irvine, Ford in Dundee"—
  if it comes—
  "or the big development in Livingston wth Japanese capital by the Shin-Etsu Handotai company mentioned in the press today. I shall be delighted to see it come. However, we are entitled to protest against the way in which the arrival of an electronics company is sometimes used as an alibi for almost everything else that is happening on the Scottish industrial scene."—[Official Report, 21 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 853.]
  That will not encourage inward investment. That is saying, "OK, I'm glad that the patient's temperature has gone down by 1 deg, but he is terribly ill and unlikely to recover."
  Those remarks contrast phenomenally with the positive and immensely successful tour of the United States and Japan which has just been concluded by the Secretary of State for Scotland with officials of the Scottish Development Agency and other business men. There were some complaints about the Secretary of State's absence the other night, when he was in Japan and I was fearful that he might have been talent-spotted, so I was happy to see him back.
  I wish to emphasise the Minister's comments. We are competing not with the past or with unemployment figures, hut with our fiercest international competitors and we cannot artificially subsidise industries which have no future. Not a day passes but the enormous, burgeoning prosperity of Scotland is re-emphasised—Butlins, Clydebank, Thorn, Compaq, Livingston, and the exhibition centre. Here I pay great tribute to the right hon. Member for Govan.
  The city of Glasgow has been restored since the Government came into office. When I first went there as counsel 30 years ago, the city was in a mood of depression. It is now in a mood of hope, pride and magnificence, and the term "Glasgow is miles better" is now a proper description of the city.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: How many Tory councillors does the city have?
  Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, during that period, we had a Tory council.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned important smaller activities, such as rural commerce, development and protection. I ask the Minister to pay great attention to the points made by my
  474
  hon. Friend. the Member for Dumfries about the effect of rating and planning and the interpretation of the Scottish Office circular about development in the countryside, which varies from one part of Scotland to another. Some people take it to mean that they should have no development, while others take it to mean that they can do what they like.
  I have often said that I would like the Scottish Office to encourage the Scottish Development Agency to facilitate the transformation of our farmsteadings and country buildings into private dwellings and small commercial enterprises.
  Mr. David Marshall: What about country castles?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I shall come to country castles next.
  In that simple way, we would both preserve one of the most important and neglected parts of the Scottish heritage and being vitality and population to rural areas.
  Now, at last, let me deal with castles. There are, in the care of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, an enormous number of buildings which cost a vast amount to keep, with no roofs, a small lawn around them, a sign saying "Please keep off the grass" and 50p admission at the gate. If those buildings had roofs, it is clear that people would be living in them.
  I can give plenty of examples: Linlithgow palace, Craigmillar castle and Aberdour castle. Let us take Aberdour castle. There it is, a building with a roof and another parquet floor being put down, although it is entirely empty, just so that some Ministry of Works posters can be put on the wall. To me, it seems obscene and absurd that what could be a dwelling house for people is allowed to be a charge on the public purse.
  Fordell castle is protected by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it is an ancient monument and contains some very important works of art. Had I not bought it for £100, restored it and lived in it, the castle would, like all the others, be an empty shell of no interest to anyone and a vast charge on the revenues of the Property Services Agency and the Scottish Office.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that many people in Scotland, particularly those in rural areas, would be delighted to see every castle and great mansion razed to the ground'? As they stand, they are testaments and monuments to the slavery of working people and their families.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I hope that everyone in Scotland is listening. The reason for building houses such as the one in which I live, which was built in 1210, was not so that certain people could rule the peasants, as the hon. Gentleman imagines, but so that the peasants would have somewhere to hide and their neighbours would not cut their heads off.
  I can give Socialism a good example of the value of Fordell castle. During the miners' strike, at 11 o'clock on a Sunday night, two families—10 people—came to the castle from High Valley fields because they were seeking refuge—
  Mr. Dick Douglas: They were my constituents.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Indeed they were the hon. Gentleman's constituents and perhaps I should not mention what they said about their Member of Parliament. They had always

  475
  voted Labour, but they were coming to the house of a Tory Member to seek refuge from the persecution of other members of the National Union of Mineworkers. For a week, the castle provided them with that refuge.
  Mr. Douglas: Nonsense.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The hon. Member tempts me to tell him what those people said, but I think that it would be indiscreet for me to do so.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, as all these buildings are under statutory protection, to arrange for them to be put to proper and intelligent use for the benefit of the countryside and the Scottish people. If Opposition Members really think that it is popular in Scotland to destroy our heritage, which I have been trying for 30 years to reprieve, they should say so loud and clear before the next election.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fairbairn: No. I have heard one interruption by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not believe that the next one will be much more intelligent.
  I recently had to stay in Scotland with four English Members of Parliament—one from the midlands, one from the west country, one from Kent and one from the north. They had not been to Scotland before. I took them all over Scotland, and they were astonished that we had any complaints or felt jealous of those living in the south of England. After all, we have £127 spent on us for every £100 spent on an Englishman, every £80 spent on a Cumbrian, and every £70 spent on a Welshman. We have three international airports within 40 miles of one another. We have the best system of road and rail transport, except for occasional difficulties, making the English transport system look decadent and outdated. We have a tourist industry that makes the Lake District, Dorset and Devon look like a desert. We have excellent facilities. We have 80 per cent. of the inward technological investment, 40 per cent. of EEC grants, and the majority of regional aid for only one eleventh of the British population.
  We also have more employed people in Scotland today than have ever been employed in Scotland, with a smaller population. [Interruption.] Yes, we also have more unemployed, and I shall give Opposition Members a typical example. Every day, on the front page of the Dundee Courier and Advertiser—which is still civilised enough to put its advertisements on the front page—we read, "Situations wanted: two; situation filled: one; situations vacant: probably 500." Turning to the back page, we see the technical vacancies.
  During the election, at a meeting in Crieff, six youths who were attempting to disrupt the meeting shouted, "What are you going to do for jobs?" I said, "I shall tell you exactly what I will do. I will give you a list of the jobs available, and I will have you taken to the industrial estate in Perth." Five of them were taken on, and they had never applied for a job before. I think people should be rather cautious about their concepts of unemployment. How many people who are registered unemployed are working in the black economy? How many have taken early retirement and a golden handshake and are working in the black economy? I think that it is high time that the Government's attitude was brought forward.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: In view of the extravagant claims made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I refer him to the most recent labour market quarterly report produced by the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland, which is an arm of the Scottish Office? The hon. and learned Gentleman asserts that more people are employed in Scotland than ever before. Let me remind him that in March 1985, 1,906,000 Scots were at work. In March 1987, the figure is 1,879,000. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate the reality of the plight of the jobless, instead of making ridiculous claims about employment and unemployment north of the border?
  Mr. Fairbairn: I do appreciate the plight of the jobless. If any Opposition Member can tell me that at an election meeting he obtained jobs for five people who had never applied for jobs, will he please stand up, and I shall give way.
  There is a grave danger that Opposition Members will give the rest of Great Britain—especially English, Welsh and Irish Members of the House—the impression that they constantly girn, and therefore are eventually not to be listened to. We now have an excellent and distinguished Lord Chancellor, perhaps the most distinguished legal brain since Lord Simmons to sit upon the Woolsack. I have not heard one word from any English Member of Parliament, any English peer, or any English judge or barrister, about the appointment of a member of the Scottish bar as head of the English judiciary. Just imagine what the position would have been if Lord Havers had been appointed Lord Advocate. There would have been nothing but gurling and complaining and people saying, "Och, keep him out o' our wee patch."
  Mr. Favell: As an English lawyer, may I say that I greatly respect the new Lord Chancellor. He is most welcome, and the legal profession looks forward to working with him. Furthermore, we have great respect not only for Scottish education as a whole but for Scottish legal education in particular.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am obliged for those tributes, which I have not heard from any Opposition Member, whatever his nationality.
  Mr. David Marshall: The hon. and learned Gentleman expresses delight at the appointment of a Scot to the highest legal position in Britain. Why does he not express the same delight at the continuing appointment of Peter Fraser as Solicitor-General for Scotland?
  Mr. Fairbairn: The two positions are not comparable. The hon. Gentleman will remember the great difficulties that arose after the first world war. The opinion, not of the late Lord Clyde, but of his grandfather, was that no person could occupy two offices. As prosecutions were conducted in their name and not in the name of the Crown, they could not be seen to be unable to undertake prosecutions.
  When I listened on Wednesday night to the speeches of Opposition Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "You were asleep."] When I listened to the speeches of those Opposition Members that I had the misfortune to be unable to sleep through, I was reminded of Thomas Carlyle's remark about his mother-in-law: that she had lost the power of communication but unfortunately not the power of speech.
  Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) to comment on speeches that he slept through during last Wednesday's debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, may I remind the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) that although this is a Second Reading debate and one can range quite wide, there has already been a very wide examination of the Bill.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I am most obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Employment on Clydebank is opposed by the Labour party on doctrinal grounds. Employment at the Ford plant is in jeopardy because of the Labour party, again on doctrinal grounds. Growth in Scotland is 4·6 per cent. compared with 3·2 per cent. in England. It is a record third year for both parts of the kingdom. Thanks to this Government, Scotland is now the trail blazer.
  As originally conceived, the only purpose of the Scottish Development Agency was to give spivs such as De Lorean the opportunity to put their spoons into public funds. Under this Government, real industry has been established and developed, and in rural areas there has been the clearance of ugliness. However, the Opposition's message is that they have nothing to offer Scotland. This Government have given Scotland everything that it wants, and more.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to make my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde. I should like to spend some time considering my predecessor, Mrs. Anna McCurley. She was a striking and popular Member of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House hold her in high regard and have some fondness for her. I share that regard since I had the pleasure of working with Mrs. McCurley when both of us were elected members of the Strathclyde regional council. At that time she demonstrated her tenacity and independence in representing her constituents. She continued to display those features during her time as a Member of Parliament.
  Mrs. McCurley was the first Member of Parliament for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde when the constituency was created by boundary changes. Early in her career as a Member of Parliament she was described by The Scotsman as outspoken and formidable. She ensured that this new constituency became well known not only in the House but in the country.
  I have said that among her many qualities Mrs. McCurley showed a good deal of independence. That is particularly witnessed by the fact that she was no blind supporter of the Government in either their actions or their philosophy. Indeed, she abstained from supporting the Government in 1984, when her plea to the Government not to pull the plug on Scott Lithgow seemed to be ignored. For these and many other reasons I must say to the House that while Mrs. McCurley was a member and supporter of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I make no apology for the fact that I am proud to be one of the main reasons why the Government cannot now man it.
  478
  Above all, Mrs. McCurley was gracious in defeat—more gracious and honest than the Government in this continuing debate. It has been said that this debate is unnecessary and time-wasting. That is utter nonsense, because it is the Government who have caused the controversy. I agree that the Scottish Development Agency should have an increased borrowing capacity. but I am gravely concerned that the way in which this Government are directing the SDA will mean that my constituency will receive less assistance from that body than it has received in the past. Last week the Minister of State told the House that the Labour Government had created the SDA to be interventionist. It was his vain and proud boast that under this Government it has been transformed into an engine of free enterprise.
  The point at issue for me and my constituents is the radical change of direction, whereby the abandonment of the sensible interventionist policies that were embodied in the Labour vision that created the SDA has led to the abandonment by this Government of constituencies such as mine.
  Renfrew, West and Inverclyde is a varied constituency, stretching from the banks of the Clyde, with its traditional and still vitally important industries, through rural areas which have their own serious problems of transport and, for some, isolation, to the comparatively new community of Erskine. In each of these areas there is high unemployment—devastating and tragic in its consequences.
  I was not elected solely by the unemployed. No, I was elected because people of all incomes and standing voted for me. Although they may work and own their own homes, they want decent standards of education, better health care and further education and jobs for their children. Those are the matters that concern me and my family. My constituents are also concerned about these matters. Above all, they have found Government action and the views embodied in the Minister of State's speech last week offensive to their sense of fairness, because his comments about the SDA described the Government's strategy of polarisation, of division between the haves and the have-nots, of creating a divided society which the electorate in Greenock, Gourock, Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Kilbarchan, Houston and Erskine utterly reject.
  This polarisation of the SDA away from the needs of the community, which was implicit in the words of the Minister of State, is also central to the Government's strategy in their document, "Scottish Homes," which attacks the safe tenure of thousands of my constituents. It is this polarisation between those on no or low incomes and the best off, which is central to the thinking behind the wicked and iniquitous poll tax, which will discriminate against many thousands of my constituents. That tax so offends the sense of fairness of our people that I know many of my constituents who, even though they may benefit financially, realise that their society will take yet another moral step backwards and see that the tax is a further attack upon local democracy and local councils, which are attempting to maintain essential services in the face of increasing vicious assaults from the Government.
  The Minister of State said that the Bill confirms the Government's commitment to the continuing process of improving the Scottish economy. That would be laughable were it not transformed into human tragedy and waste in the lives of so many of my constituents who have become and remain unemployed. I will not give the House a litany

  479
  of factory closures in my constituency. That would be as long as, if not longer than, those in many other parts of Scotland, although I am delighted with the news that Compaq today said that it will double its work force sooner than expected because of the skills in our community. That is good news and I welcome it.
  I finish by telling the House about one community in my constituency which I have not yet mentioned. Linwood is not simply the area I represent, but the community in which I live. It is an area grievously injured by a massive level of unemployment inflicted by the Government. It is a community where the pride and the stamina of my people have survived despite the Government, despite low incomes, no jobs and lack of development. It is a community with such need that I hold it up to the House as a prime example of the failure on a catastrophic scale of the free enterprise approach about which the Minister of State boasts.
  I say to the Minister, to the House and to my people that I will fight for all my constituents and for their children. I warn the Minister now that my constituents do not want a fast-buck society—the instant reward. They do not want a Government who think only of the present. That is why they elected me, a member of the Labour party—the party not only of the present, but of the future.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on his maiden speech. He instantly captured the respect of the House by paying a generous tribute to his predecessor, Anna McCurley. She was held in great affection and regard on both sides of the House, and although we welcome the hon. Gentleman, we mourn the loss of Anna McCurley and hope that she will be back among us soon—even though we cannot predict exactly which Scottish constituency she may next represent. The hon. Gentleman made an impressive maiden speech. He spoke with great commitment and eloquence, skilfully tailoring his speech to the edge of controversy. If he was not controversial, he was certainly not uncommitted, and he made clear to the House the anxieties of his constituents. I hope that we will hear again from him soon.
  A week ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) dismissed my intervention in his speech when I tried to draw his attention to the considerable increase in the financial limits of the Scottish Development Agency which the Bill represents. He tried to imply that it was an increase only in the borrowing requirement and that it meant a reduction in the agency's spending power. But the Scottish Development Agency's external financial limit includes borrowing and spending, and the Bill will authorise an increase of about 71 per cent.
  That is a substantial increase in public moneys given to a specific agency of Government, and it should be clear to Opposition Members that those moneys, whether borrowed or spent, are then not available for spending for other purposes in Scotland, such as on schools and hospitals, or for spending on equivalent purposes in England. The moneys are taken from businesses and taxpayers in Scotland, but they are also taken from businesses and taxpayers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  480
  Those hon. Members who seem to regard a 71 per cent. increase in the development agency's spending and borrowing as of little account should set the increase in the overall context of industrial support in Scotland. This year, industrial support in Scotland will be about £124 million. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) said, that means that the increase represents not only Scottish money but the application of English money. A glance at the annual territorial analysis of public spending shows that spending in Scotland is on average about 27 per cent. higher per capita than spending in England. Spending on industry, energy, trade and employment is about 90 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than it is in England. For every £5 spent on industrial support in England, about £9·50 is spent on industrial support in Scotland.
  The money about which we are talking is not simply Scottish money. It is predominantly English money raised from English taxpayers. That is why it is right for us to consider whether the resources allocated to Scotland are being allocated effectively and whether they are being allocated unfairly when one considers the regions of England which have similar, or worse, structural problems and unemployment rates. The north-east of England is one such example.
  We must examine how the allocation of resources discriminates against regions such as the north-east. In 1986–87, about £107 million was paid in regional selective assistance in Scotland, whereas only £100 million was paid in the north-east. Spending on old-style regional development grants was almost twice as high in Scotland as it was in the north-east of England. Yet in 1986 Scottish unemployment averaged 15·7 per cent. and unemployment in the north-east averaged 18·5 per cent. There is a clear element of discrimination here.
  I do not suggest that comparable development agencies should be set up for every region of England. There would be no point in having a development agency for every region simply competing against each other, but if this generous provision continues, and Opposition Members continue to criticise it, we in the north-east will have to see how it compares with the resources available to our agencies.
  We shall examine carefully equivalent agencies such as the urban development corporations of Tyneside and Teesside and our promotional outfit, the Northern Development Company, to see what resources they have per capita compared with the resources available in Scotland. We shall continue to keep the resources that are made available in Scotland under critical review. Few hon. Members have considered the way in which the SDA carries out its functions.
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the financial support that has been given to the Teesside urban development corporation?
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Lady will know that next week the House will debate a Bill to increase the financial support for the Teesside urban development corporation.
  Miss Mowlam: But is the hon. Gentleman satisfied?
  Mr. Fallon: No. I will not be satisfied with the support given to the urban development corporation if it continues to be far outweighed by the per capita support given to the

  481
  SDA, and I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in my call for a much more even-handed approach to the allocation of public resources.
  No Conservative Member disputes the importance of at least some functions of the SDA. Of course a development agency should clear away the debris of the past. We have such an agency in England—English Estates—but Scotland is treated much more generously. For land purchase in the whole of England, English Estates has a budget of about £2·6 million. The SDA, which serves only 5 million people, has a budget exactly double that amount. We in the north-east also need an agency to promote our region and to secure fresh, internationally mobile investment for the north-east, just as the SDA and Locate in Scotland try to attract investment to that country. But there is a great difference in the resources allocated. This year, the SDA will spend about £13 million on promotion and publicity. The Northern Development Company has £1 million to spend. No Scottish Labour Member can argue that resources are being allocated equally.
  Another primary function of the SDA is derelict land clearance, to which it will commit £38 million this year. That represents one third of the amount spent on land clearance in Britain in a country whose population is only one tenth of the British population. Let us have no criticism of the resources being provided by the Government to Scotland. Instead, hon. Members on both sides of the House should ensure that those resources are effectively managed and efficiently applied.
  I wish to consider three aspects of the Scottish Development Agency's work and the conclusions of the review group. First, the development agency should clear away the old industrial landscape and help to build more factories, refurbish the environment and carry out the environmental work that public agencies have always done. Secondly, the SDA should do its best to compete against other agencies to attract international investment. But when one considers the third function of the development agency—that of directing public investment—the questions begin to accumulate.
  When we consider the figures we find that the Scottish Development Agency has made a number of rather serious misjudgments. More than 1,000 of the companies that it has backed over the past 12 years have gone bankrupt. Indeed, the review group report states that the overall rate of return on investments made in the period 1980–85 is estimated to have been about 5·4 per cent. for head office investment and negative for small business division investment. In other words, the SDA, in choosing suitable small business investments for our money, has been making a loss on that money for the past five years.
  I believe that much greater clarity should be given to the development agency's investment function. Indeed, I am somewhat suspicious of the agency's aim, about which I read in its latest annual report, to increase the aggregate money income of Scotland's residents. To increase the aggregate money income of Scotland is one thing, but to do it by taking money from England and investing it in risks and enterprises which the Scots are not prepared to risk money on themselves is quite another thing.
  There is a general lesson to be learnt. Scotland's residents are residents of the United Kingdom and have as much interest as the rest of us in reducing such misallocation of public money, in reducing the role of the state in risk taking and investments of that kind and in
  482
  encouraging the expansion of the market sector. Scots also have an interest in lowering the proportion of gross domestic product taken in public expenditure. I remind the House that that proportion, 48 per cent., is very much higher in Scotland than it is in England.
  In short, the SDA, through the investment function, is investing English taxpapers' money in risks that the Scots are not prepared to back themselves. If that were not true, we would have had some calls to privatise the SDA. Therefore, it must be true. Instead of depending on quangos such as the SDA and civil servants to take risks for them with English money, the Scots should be looking much more to their own financial institutions and asking why they are not bearing a higher proportion of the risk themselves.
  Why as Conservatives do we license such a body in Scotland when we have not been prepared to support the introduction of similar bodies in equally hard-pressed regions of the United Kingdom such as the north-east and north-west? If we are to continue to support such an agency from the Conservative Benches, we must apply at least three conditions. First, the resources allocated to the SDA should not be disproportionate to the resources allocated for similar genuine public purposes in other regions of the United Kingdom.
  Secondly, those resources should be used more effectively than if they were applied for the same purpose in other ways through other agencies. We should expect greater value for taxpayers' money from the SDA than we would otherwise expect from spending by Government Departments.
  Dr. Moonie: Would the hon. Gentleman like to see a reduction in spending in Scotland or an increase in spending in the regions of England?
  Mr. Fallon: I would certainly like a reduction in the proportion of GDP taken by public spending in all parts of the United Kingdom as a whole. I would certainly like. a much more even-handed approach to the application of public resources. I very much regret the fact that public spending in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is sc. very much higher per capita than it is in England.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: There is almost an implicit threat in the hon. Gentleman's comments. When he requests a more even-handed approach, is he reflecting his own views or those of the Scottish Office?
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman should not anticipate me. I will consider the Scottish Office's approach in a moment.
  I have said that Conservative Members should continue to support the existence of and resources allocated to the SDA provided that the agency fulfils three criteria: its resources should not be disproportionate; the resources should be used more effectively than resources allocated in other ways; and the purpose and management of the agency should continue to be kept under very strict review.
  I notice that the review group established by the Treasury and the Scottish Office made some scathing criticisms of the management of the agency. It is simply not true to say—as Opposition Members have said throughout the debate—that the agency is doing a good job splendidly. Opposition Members. have been a little

  483
  taken in by the annual report. The review group did not reach that conclusion. Far from it. Paragraph 2.36 of its report states:
  "We have found that the Agency's stated corporate priorities do not relate well to its functions, its organisational structure or its approved budget headings and that its planning and budgeting are not well linked. Nor is there a good tie-up between the Department's planning and the Agency's planning. The Agency's budget prioritisation system … suffers from serious shortcomings. The Agency has not devoted adequate effort to assessing the impact of its activities and its financial systems do not provide adequate management information."
  I would not have thought that that was an outstandingly clean bill of health from the review group. I hope that my ministerial colleagues will give the commitment that they will continue to keep the management of the agency on its toes and under review.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if we made it a condition of any additional funding for the agency that some of the serious criticisms that he has just brought to the attention of the House are corrected? Would it not be rash to pledge more resources to the agency when its control procedures are as weak as the review group has reported? How would my hon. Friend react to that suggestion?
  Mr. Fallon: I am sure that my ministerial colleagues at the Scottish Office will apply that consideration when they decide how additional resources should be exercised by the agency. I am sure that we will hear how the recommendations of the review group — and there are substantial recommendations in the report—will be put into effect and how they will be monitored.
  I hope that I have made it clear to the House that, speaking simply for myself, I have doubts about the SDA. However, I am prepared to trust the word of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State described the SDA last week as an "engine of free enterprise". It would seem to me that it is an engine of free enterprise liberally lubricated by public money. If my hon. Friend says that it is an engine of free enterprise, we look forward to seeing how it performs.
  My ministerial colleagues have taken—as we would expect—a very pragmatic and constructive view of the operation of the agency. They are all very pragmatic and constructive people. I hope that they will seriously consider some of the criticisms.
  Mr. Maxton: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say a word or two about his erstwhile political ally and ideologue the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and say whether he expects his hon. Friend to support the Bill?
  Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend's name is among the supporters of the Bill and he must justify not simply to the House but to himself the very pragmatic and constructive course that his view of public investment is taking. I am sure he will do that.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that the clear message contained in his comments is that Scotland, relative to his region, the north-east, and to mine, the north-west, is in a privileged position? Scotland is doing well compared with the rest of the United Kingdom but more support from the Front Bench would not come amiss.
  Mr. Fallon: I agree. The entire two-day debate could be condensed into two words—"Thank you".
  Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. friend completes his interesting and stimulating address, will he comment on the Scottish National party view that all funding of Scottish expenditure comes out of Scotland and that Scotland does not enjoy a better position than the north-west and north-east of England?
  Mr. Fallon: I have never been able to understand that argument. Soon we shall have the latest review on annual spending and members of the SNP, like us all, will be able to assess Scotland's relative position.
  I have said that Ministers take a pragmatic and constructive view of the Scottish Development Agency. They accept that the agency must continue to exist and they accept the purposes which the agency has laid down for itself. I ask my hon. Friends to pay attention to three serious points. First, the review group recommended that the agency should re-examine its advisory services for which it does not charge. I should like many more of those services to be considered for charging. Secondly, it should be obvious to everybody that the agency's small business lending and investment operation must be examined more carefully and, as the review group said, be subject to much stricter commercial disciplines. Thirdly, it is self-evident that a higher proportion of the agency's activities should be self-financing.
  Ministers have an obligation at least to consider those criticisms. After all, they are not simply Ministers in the Scottish Office but Ministers with obligations to all United Kingdom taxpayers from whom the agency is so generously funded.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I join the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) in complimenting the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on his formidable maiden speech. It was a sign of great things to come. However, I could not agree with the rest of the speech by the hon. Member for Darlington. He and I went to the same university, but the fact that he seems unable to distinguish between the total financial limit of the Scottish Development Agency and the annual current grant does nothing to enhance the reputation of the institution we both attended.
  When the hon. Member for Darlington was at St. Andrews he had a reputation for being an independent and moderate Conservative. I hope that that reputation does not damn his political career. I am sorry that he has fallen for the free market, laissez-faire stance which is the vogue on the Conservative Benches.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about Scottish expenditure. Tories conveniently forget that they refer to identifiable public expenditure figures but we in the Scottish National party are also interested in expenditure which is not identifiable. We include items such as commuter subsidies in the south of England, an aspect which the Institute of Economic Affairs in a paper entitled, "Manufacturing-Two Nations" described as being more significant than the entire regional aid budget for the United Kingdom. We include house purchase subsidies, which are balanced towards the English economy because of higher earnings and higher house prices. We include defence expenditure. About £3 billion additional expenditure on defence alone

  485
  goes to a narrow region of the English economy. We could also include London weighting, but I shall leave the broader questions for another day.
  If the hon. Gentleman conducts an exercise on the overall Scottish budget and calculates revenue and expenditure, he will find that Scotland's current budget position is in a £3·5 billion surplus. That represents a great subsidy from the Scottish economy to the English economy.
  There is some consolation in the otherwise unsatisfactory framework of our debate which had to be adjourned last week: we have been able to read in the Official Report what the Minister said when he opened the debate. Indeed if it had not been for the Official Report, I suspect that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) who has left the Chamber, leaving us sadder but no wiser-would not have been able to refer at all to last week's proceedings. We shall now be able to pin down the Minister exactly. Last week, he said of the SDA:
  "In recognition of that, and the increased effectiveness it has achieved in the use of its funds, we have been able to increase its budget in real terms since coming into office."—[Official Report, 21 October; Vol. 120, c 844.]
  From that it seems that he was talking about Government expenditure on the Scottish Development Agency, yet we know from parliamentary answers that the Scottish Development Agency's budget has decreased in real terms by 15 per cent. over this Government's term of office—from £104 million to £89 million.
  Even in terms of gross expenditure, including the agency's own resources, there has been a marginal decline in real expenditure. The Minster must tell us exactly how he can justify his original comment.
  There is a consistent trend in Government economic policy. When confronted with inconvenient statistics, they do not confront the problem, they change the statistics. Employment statistics are an example, as are the Minister's weasel words claiming an increase in the SDA budget when a decrease has occurred.
  The decrease in the SDA budget takes place against a backcloth of radical cuts in the total United Kingdom regional aid budget. Over the last 10 years the decline in real terms of total regional aid expenditure in Scotland has been about 55 per cent. The Scottish economy has growing problems. Conservatives talk in glowing terms about successes in the Scottish economy, but that is not the overall picture.
  For example, the latest statistics for the first quarter of 1987 show that the index for industrial production and construction in Scotland stood at 98·6, using 1980 as the base when the index was 100. The equivalent figure for the United Kingdom was 111·6. How can that be described either as an improvement relative to the United Kingdom or an improvement in absolute terms? The Minister must explain.
  Despite its best efforts, the Scottish Development Agency has not been able to transform the Scottish economy's prospects. As evidence of the SDA's missed opportunity, I shall turn to its annual report. It shows that nearly four times more money was spent last year on its operational management than on total investment. Nearly 54 per cent. of its net expenditure was spent on environmental improvements—new land and buildings —but 2 per cent. only of its budget was spent on net industrial investment.
  486
  Thus, in a year when Scotland lost thousands of jobs in the oil, shipbuilding and engineering industries, the SDA spent the bulk of its time and money on landscaping and similar projects. But that was not the agency's fault At the end of 1985 the former chief executive of the agency said that he could effectively spend twice his budget on, viable projects in Scotland if the Government were willing to provide the funds.
  In his speech last week the Minister said:
  "The agency is now increasingly applying to the development of indigenous companies the targeted approach that has brought it success in the attraction of inward. investment."—[Official Report, 21 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 843.]
  That is a welcome development. But how does the Minister think that the SDA will achieve that worthy objective when in the past 10 years the percentage of its budget spent on net industrial investment has declined from 25 per cent. to a meagre 2 per cent.? How can ii restructure the Scottish economy to the benefit of indigenous companies? It is all very well for the SDA to carry out targeted surveys and sectoral reports, but what can it do with those reports without the budget that will lead to industrial investment from indigenous companies? The Minister mentioned food processing and engineering as part of this sectoral approach, but there are many other opportunities, in biotechnology, educational supply, transport equipment, mineral resources and timber. The SDA is interested in those sectors in which Scotland has an important natural advantage. Those sectors would benefit from an adequate budget to enable industrial investment to take place.
  We in the Scottish National party call for the SDA's budget to be increased by at least £50 million so that it can invest in such industries and seriously attempt to restructure the Scottish economy.
  We know from the agency review of last year that the meagre industrial investment that it currently carries out has brought great success. The review estimated that in the period 1981–85, 10,000 additional jobs have resulted from that meagre investment, at a subsidy rate of about £1,000 per job. That is an excellent record, and surely it shows that the budget should be vastly increased.
  Another point that many hon. Members raised, on which the Minister should give us a specific reply, related to the rural development schemes. What has happened with regard to PRIDE—projects for rural industry and development enterprises—and DRAW—development of rural workshops — over the past few months? This, subject was raised by the hon. Members for Carrick. Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Dumfries (Mr. H. Monro), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and myself. What funding will be available for the continuation of these schemes? Is the Minister prepared to deny the. rumour that is currently circulating, that grant aid for these schemes is about to be withdrawn and substituted by a loan scheme? Furthermore, will he give an assurance that the companies that undertook studies to see whether they qualified for these schemes, only to find that the schemes had been stopped, will be given priority when new applications are made?
  I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), that it is extremely unfortunate that last week this important Scottish business started at 11 pm. I further agree that it was unfortunate that Scottish Members who wanted to discuss that

  487
  important business had to sacrifice a wide-ranging debate on the Scottish economy. However, there is not only one explanation for the confusion over last week's debate. In particular, I mention comments that were made in The Scotsman on 23 October. Government sources claimed that when the timetable was being worked out before the summer recess, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked for the SDA debate to be moved from yesterday afternoon to Wednesday night in a straight swap for a debate on disarmament. The Government Whips agreed to the switch, on condition that the SDA debate ended at 1 am.
  I do not know whether Government sources are perpetrating a foul calumny on the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I say to Labour Members that it is very difficult to protest against the system, even when there is ample evidence that it is not providing proper time for Scottish debates, only to discover that the Labour Front Bench may be part of the arrangement by which such an eventuality occurred.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I caution the hon. Gentleman, early in his parliamentary career, that it is very dangerous to draw on comments in The Scotsman, or any other newspaper, that are described as "Government sources", particularly with regard to discussions that have occurred, whether they be between the Government, the Liberal party, the Labour party or any other party. We are aware of a history of Government sources telling deliberate lies to show themselves in a better light. A similar situation arose in the Scottish Grand Committee with regard to the day on which the Liberal party had the choice of business. The Liberal party was betrayed on that day and the same attributed Government sources put out lies to the newspapers on that occasion.
  Mr. Salmond: I accept that a foul calumny may have been perpetrated on the right hon. Member for Gorton, but, if so, I would have expected the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), when he wrote to The Scotsman about other matters in the same report, to have put the record straight. The right hon. Member for Gorton still has an opportunity to write to The Scotsman to clarify that important matter.
  The central difficulty that we face, despite the general agreement between the 62 Opposition Scottish Members on the direction the SDA should take—this is evidenced by the lack of numbers on the Government Benches—is how we can bring our majority will to bear on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the numbers of Members on our Benches. May I point out to him that one fifth of Scottish Conservative Back-Bench Members are here, as is one fifth of the Labour party's representation.
  Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman worked that out without a calculator.
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the weakness of the Conservative Back-Bench contingent. He may consider that the departure of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) represents a strengthening of his team.
  The point that I was making was how to bring the majority will of Scotland to bear on the Government on
  488
  the SDA issue and on every other. Until we can answer that question and solve that problem, there is little that we will be able to do about the Scottish economy or any other matter facing our country.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate, which is of importance for Scotland and its economy.
  I shall follow convention and pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Gerald Malone. He earned a reputation as a Member who worked hard and industriously on behalf of his constituents and the House. Like myself, he is a Scottish solicitor and I understand that he is taking some interest in that profession. I gather that he has added another string to his bow by becoming involved in journalism. He is still interested in his political career and I wish him well in all his careers, but it would be dishonest of me to say that I wish him a speedy return to the House.
  The constituency I am proud to represent makes two significant contributions not only to the Scottish economy but to the economy of the United Kingdom. It is the oil capital of Europe. The contribution made by Aberdonians and those based in Aberdeen plays a considerable part in the Chancellor's ability to reduce tax rates and masks some of the more fundamental and real problems in our economy. That is because of the contribution oil makes to the Exchequer. It is also one of the major fishing ports. About three quarters of the total amount of fish landed in this country is landed in the north-east of Scotland and a substantial proportion of that is landed in Aberdeen. I hope that in future debates on that issue I shall be able to make a speech because that, together with most of the other industries in Scotland, is suffering at the moment.
  Today we are considering the Scottish Development Agency Bill and I want to say something about the considerable contribution that the SDA makes to my constituency. I am advised that about £92.400 per 1,000 head of population is invested in Aberdeen, South by the SDA. That is one of the highest rates of investment in any constituency in Scotland. It is a tribute to those who created the SDA—it has been mentioned often that it was a creation of a Labour Government—that although the Government have made at least two attempts to interfere in the real work of the SDA, it still exists and makes a valuable contribution.
  On the matter of the contributions, there are some anomalies and I will give examples. In my constituency the SDA made an investment in market research and studies to the tune of about £517,000 in 1985–86. I assume that the market research and studies are an attempt to identify new areas for job creation. However, in another part of my constituency Aberdeen university, which has existed for about 500 years, has been starved of funds by another Government-funded agency, the University Grants Committee. Just yesterday the senate of Aberdeen university took a decision in relation to a paper. If that paper is implemented, it will mean the loss of 150 jobs in my constituency. It strikes me as anomalous that we should have an agency charged specifically with the task of creating employment but also have another Government agency such as the UGC, which is the direct responsibility of the Government, obtains its funds from the Government and whose policy, if implemented in

  489
  Aberdeen university, will result in the loss of those 150 jobs and the closure of at least six departments. I am sure that we shall return to that subject again.
  On lands and buildings in my constituency the SDA, again in order to provide job opportunities, contributed about £5,185,000 in 1985–86. It made a valuable contribution in terms of advance factory units and so on. However, the Government, as a direct result of their policy of privatisation, privatised the only remaining shipyard in the east of Scotland, Hall Russell shipyard. Because of the Government's policy towards shipbuilding, particularly in relation to defence but also in relation to the merchant fleet, the future of that yard is hanging by the slenderest of threads. About 500 jobs are at risk. The yard is currently waiting expectantly for the Government to make a decision on a tender submitted for the building of the St. Helena ferry. We have been waiting for a considerable time. The yard's future depends on the outcome of that tender. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not have direct responsibility for that but I urge the Government, through him, to make an early decision on that tender and on the 500 jobs.
  The SDA has made a substantial contribution to the national hyperbaric centre in Aberdeen. It is a centre intended to provide jobs and develop life-saving techniques for the vital North sea oil industry. The Grampian region is no different from any other part of the country where the Health Service is under great stress with a shortage of doctors and nurses. However, there is a particular problem in Aberdeen —the lack of a specialist heart unit, despite considerable demand. Patients from the Grampian region have to travel to Glasgow for urgent heart operations and there have been deaths in the process. I call on the Government to look at that matter. I am aware that a review body has been established and that it is likely to report in the near future. However, I urge the Government to consider sympathetically the demands of the Grampain health board and others who have asked for a specialist heart unit in the Aberdeen area.
  I have given specific examples of the Government's approach where there appears to be a lack of coherence. As I have said, the SDA is charged specifically with the function of creating jobs but because of Government policy we see a loss of jobs. It is difficult to understand what the Government's policy is except that it appears that what the Government giveth with one hand they taketh away with the other.
  The Bill is intended to increase the financial limit of the SDA to £1,200 million. I understand that to be a borrowing limit. I have to ask; why so little when so much needs to be done? I note in the explanatory memorandum that we are advised that the Bill will have no effect on public service manpower. I have to ask the simple question: Why not?
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: My first pleasant responsibility is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) on his maiden speech. I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) since I am the first Labour Member to have an opportunity to do so. The two maiden speeches from Labour Members have emphasised commitment to their constituencies and a firm advocacy of their constituency's roles and opinions. I trust that we will hear from both of
  490
  my hon. Friends in further debates, not only on issues such as the SDA and the Scottish economy but on other matters in which they have an interest. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South brings to the House a considerable knowledge of oil and oil-related matters, and we welcome the opportunity to hear him.
  We have heard several speeches from Conservative Members who have now left the Chamber. I want to say a word or two about the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) and his intervention in relation to a matter affecting the miners' strike in my constituency. He is fairly eclectic in his remarks, as we might expect from some lawyers. However, I remind him of a conversation in relation to the incident. I told him over the telephone to keep out of my constituency because he knew very little about what was happening in the village. If he had intervened, he would have made matters worse. Thankfully he was gracious enough to accept my strictures and to acknowledge the courtesy of parliamentary procedure and left me to deal with the matter. Happily the matter was resolved. Much of it had nothing at all to do with the miners' strike.
  Mr. Fairbairn: I do not want to score points off the hon. Gentleman, but it was not me who intervened. His constituents, who told me that they had always been Labour supporters, sought sanctuary in my house.
  Mr. Douglas: It will not benefit the House to prolong this matter.
  I want to deal with what I consider to be the economic rationale both of this measure and of the Scottish Development Agency. Labour Members question the virtues of the market to deal with matters affecting the economy, be it structural imbalance or industries falling into decline and difficulty.
  The philosophy behind the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency recognised the need for a source of countervailing power against the pull of the south-east and London. That was allied to regional policy as a whole. We had to consider how we might tilt the balance against the over-centralisation of activity in the south-east and the midlands.
  We argue that the market is unfair. For the benefit of those graduates of St. Andrew's who remain in the Chamber, let me deal with the matter simply. Let us suppose that one person has an income of £100 a week while another has an income of £1,000 and a third an income of £20,000 a week. If those incomes are doubled —magically or otherwise—the effects on each person's expenditure will be different. The man with £100 might spend more on food and the man with £1,000 more on luxuries. The man with £20,000 might invest the lot.
  If this were to happen in the economy as a whole, there would be a redistribution of resources.
  Conservative Members—especially the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) — rage against the "disproportionate" amount of public expenditure that Scotland receives because that amount is quantifiable in terms of Government statistics. However, those statistics do not include the redistribution of income and wealth by, for example, the doubling of house prices in London in three or four years. Government statistics may not quantify such factors but they represent a change in the balance of purchasing power throughout the United Kingdom. That is what the so-called market does.

  491
  We argue that that is extremely unfair. It creates not only an imbalance in terms of expenditure but huge social diseconomies that are very difficult to quantify. The Government do not give comparable figures for the social diseconomies of London and the south-east. Government statistics are compiled in relation to what the Government can identify as expenditure.
  Page 64 of the SDA report states:
  "growth has been unevenly distributed within the United Kingdom, with the rapid expansion occurring in the South-East of England leading to shortages of skilled labour and housing."
  That is the work of the market that so many Conservative Members support. There is a shortage of skilled labour and housing in London and the south-east and there is unemployment in Scotland.
  How can the Government say, "We want the SDA to be an engine of free enterprise"? Incidentally, one of the Minister's hon. Friends misquoted him as saying that it should be the engine of capitalism. If the SDA is to become the engine of free enterprise, God help us.
  The SDA was established in 1979. Since then we have seen a massive sea change in the international economy. There are three elements to that change. First, as has become poignantly manifest over the past few weeks, there is a division between financial operations and real investment. Financial operations do not necessarily create real investment. The division has been exacerbated by recent technological revolutions. There has also been division between primary and secondary producers. Over the past 100 years the close relationship between those who produce raw materials and those who produce manufactured goods has broken down. There is no real explanation for that, but it is nevertheless true.
  Thirdly, there has been an expansion of what we loosely call services. We are not talking about hotels and catering alone. There is a whole range of services relating to finance and banking. Indeed, the administration of the computer industry is in itself a service.
  Those three elements have strengthened the need for an interventionist agency such as the SDA. I fear for the agency's future if the Government intend to stand back and use it as an instrument of free enterprise.
  In our debate last week I made a somewhat fanciful interjection about the number of photographs of Sir Robin Duthie in the annual report—
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: He is a perfectly respectable-looking man.
  Mr. Douglas: That is a matter of opinion.
  We need a little deeper thinking. If the agency becomes tied too closely to the Government's policies, it will not do its job for Scotland. One can take different views of what should happen to Scotland and where we should be going in terms of economic and political development. Let me refer to an interview in a recent issue of the Financial Times with Professor Jack Shaw who was recently appointed to Stirling university. The piece was entitled "The special case for Scotland". Professor Shaw argued against the creation of a Scottish Assembly, saying:
  "The trouble with a Scottish assembly is that you don't actually add to your significance that way. It would actually reduce our significance as viewed from London."
  492
  That is one view. The opposite view—that taken by the nationalists — is that we should be completely independent.
  I argue that the three elements to which I referred increase the need for a Scottish Assembly. We need a focus for political deliberation in Scotland allied to the agency as a source of countervailing power against the House and the dominance of the City of London. If we do not have that, the relative decline of Scotland will increase. I recognise the force of the independence argument. I do not think that we need to go that far but my experience of the past few years under the Conservatives suggests to me that we need not only economic levers in organisations such as the SDA but a political debating chamber in Scotland where we can emphasise and articulate the needs of Scotland in a Scottish context.
  The agency has done a good job, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Darlington. I know that time is short and that it would be wrong to read in full the report of the review body. However, the review body gave the agency a reasonably good bill of health:
  "Most of the considerations which led to the SDA's establishment remain valid … We recommend that there should be no change in the statutory purposes, functions and powers of the SDA."
  The report continues in that vein.
  There are few of the SDA's functions and operations that the private sector would like to, or could, take up. Indeed, if one examines the litany in annexe 9 of the report, one can find none. A major function of the SDA is land reclamation to make up for the devastation and destruction caused by the market in the late 19th century. The same applies to its work in Glasgow.
  The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) should make up his mind. This is the first time that he has had his name on a Bill in the House, and it is supported by half of the Scottish Tories. There are only five Scottish Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman should not just sit there full of humbug. If he supports the Bill, he should reach the logical conclusion and say that Scotland needs a legislative assembly with real economic powers to oversee the agency's activities.
  There has been increased Labour representation in Scotland. The CBI's report on 1 October 1987 to the National Economic Development Council is called "Maintaining the Momentum of Britain's Recovery". Table 3 refers to the change in manufacturing production between 1976 and 1986 and gives the following figures: Japan, plus 56 per cent.; the United States, plus 34 per cent.; Italy, plus 15 per cent.; the Netherlands, plus 20 per cent.; West Germany, plus 18 per cent.; France, plus 5 per cent.; and the United Kingdom, minus 2 per cent. The report states:
  "Without an internationally competitive manufacturing base, the prospects for reducing unemployment outside the south-east are remote. Whereas Southern Britain gained virtually one service industry job for every one lost … the rest of the country has gained only one for every four or five manufacturing jobs lost. The growth in self-employment over recent years has also been concentrated in the South.
  The manufacturing and service sectors are interdependent, to the extent that the distinction between them is meaningful at all. By some estimates, around a quarter of the output of the service sector is dependent on manufacturing industry. Consulting without clients is not a particularly rewarding pastime and whole industries have grown up providing services which were previously undertaken in-house by manufacturers (e.g. catering, workwear)."

  493
  That is what has happened to the United Kingdom, especially Scotland, despite the SDA's efforts. We want more of the SDA, not as "an engine of free enterprise" but as an engine of purposeful intervention controlled in Scotland by a Scottish Assembly.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I should like to associate myself with the tributes to the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I am sure that we can look forward to more excellent contributions by them.
  I represent an area that has been significantly and directly affected by the activities of the Scottish Development Agency. Through the Dundee project, the SDA has formed a close productive partnership with local authorities — the district and regional councils — the private sector and trade unions. That partnership has given us a glimpse of the SDA's potential. It has shown us in a concrete way what can be achieved when public and private investment are linked—not in a purely financial relationship but in a planned programme to transform a city's economic face.
  A series of initiatives has brought us well down the road towards transforming the city' face. A project in the Blackness area has transformed a part of the city which was characterised by industrial and urban decay. New businesses and enterprises have come into the area. Housing improvements have been carried out. People have moved back and there have been widespread environmental improvements. All these changes have been brought about by the determination of the SDA and the Dundee project to intervene, invest, originate ideas and bring life back into that part of the city. Had it been left to free market forces alone—as is the Minister's wont—the area would have continued decaying and the people would have been abandoned. Fortunately, the SDA, through the Dundee project, intervened and saved the area.
  There have been many other projects in Dundee. The new technology park was successfully launched some years ago and has been well established by Ford's decision to locate its latest plant there in the face of fierce competition from around the world. A new £30 million waterfront development scheme will bring much-needed service jobs to the city. Some 1,100 service jobs will be provided, as well as 400 jobs during the construction stage. The development will provide leisure and recreation facilities of the first order for the Dundee people. In addition, there will be a tourist attraction of national significance in the form of Scott's Discovery and the new heritage centre.
  There is also the "City of Discovery" campaign, which was begun on the SDA's initiative. Moving Scott's ship back to the city was a publicity initiative of the first order which can only be applauded. The fireworks display held from the back of a moving train on the railway bridge during the bridge's centenary celebrations was another major coup, which has helped put Dundee back on centre stage in Scotland. All these welcome developments have flowed from the partnership between the SDA and local public and private sectors. They vindicate in a concrete way the original decision by a Labour Government to establish a Government agency which would intervene in and help to direct the future shape of the Scottish economy.
  494
  Much has gone wrong with the original concept of the SDA. We should not allow ourselves to be blinded by the success of Locate in Scotland—welcome though it is in attracting inward investment—to the dangers of overdependence on foreign investment. Flags go out and there is general rejoicing when multinationals decide to invest money, to create employment, and to strengthen and widen our economic base, but the reaction is very different when the multinationals decide, for their own reasons, to uproot their businesses and pull out of Scotland, leaving workers and whole communities behind to face the economic consequences.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland does not need to be reminded by me of the Caterpillar decision to abandon its work force for no sound economic reasons; nor will he need to be reminded by me of his abject weakness in the face of that decision and of his inability either to check or to control these capricious decisions by multinational companies to undermine the Scottish economy.
  The answer is not to mortgage the future of the Scottish economy by leaving it mainly or wholly in the hands of multinational companies. The answer must be to strengthen and diversify our economy by investing in our indigenous companies, enterprises and industries. It is those companies that will provide the firm backbone of sound, stable and long-term economic growth.
  Fulfilling precisely that role in the Scottish economy, should be the SDA's major task. Investment in indigenous industry should be, but I am afraid is not, the agency's key role. The agency has an investment arm, but it has a woeful record compared with what was first hoped for. The local experience for Dundee and Tayside suggests that the agency takes much the same short-term view of investment as the private sector has traditionally taken. Until recently, Tayside regional council's industrial office knew of only a handful of locally based companies which had ever received any direct equity investment from the SDA. In Tayside, only seven local companies have received direct investment from the SDA, and indeed, in Dundee, only one such company has done so. Therefore, it seems clear that the agency's investment policies simply do not begin to meet the needs of emerging Scottish entrepreneurs and other people who have ideas and who live in Scotland. If they were given the right kind of encouragement by the SDA, they would certainly strengthen the local economy.
  Mr. McKelvey: As a former Dundorian, I welcome the money that the Scottish Development Agency has pumped into Dundee to the tune of around £40 million. Although I recognise my hon. Friend's point, will he consider that, if and when the SDA is to get more funds, areas of its choice, which have almost become pet projects, will give way to areas of deprivation, such as Kilmarnock, which have received virtually nothing from the Scottish Development Agency?
  Mr. McAllion: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I would not describe Dundee as a pet project of the SDA, but I recognise that, because of a lack of funding, the SDA has failed to invest to the required extent in Scotland. It strikes me that the Government are more prepared to spend more money in Scotland this year on community programmes, which are basically aimed at keeping the long-term unemployed off the unemployment register, than they are to invest in the SDA.

  495
  The new problem is a lack of investment in local Scottish indigenous industry. The Labour administration took control of Tayside regional council in 1986. It came to office believing that there was an investment gap in the local economy, as I have described. In fact, it commissioned consultants to produce a report and find out whether such a gap existed. The consultants, Coopers and Lybrand—the very same consultants commissioned by the Scottish Office to look at the SDA—looked at the problem and found that such an investment gap existed. Coopers and Lybrand recommended the confirmation of Labour's manifesto commitment to establish an enterprise board on Tayside to provide the kind of local investment that is required in Tayside to keep Tayside jobs for Tayside people. Tayside people have been let down dramatically by the Scottish Development Agency's failure to tackle the problem. Instead, it has concentrated its efforts on bringing foreign investment into our country.
  The problem with the enterprise board, which I believe is one of the most hopeful things that have happened in Scotland since 1986, is that no regional council can ever have the necessary resources to provide proper investment. Regional councils could have proper resources if the SDA backed them, and I certainly call upon the Minister to consider the matter.
  Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to those hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate for raising my point of order at this stage. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, earlier today, the Chancellor mentioned a desire to be helpful to the House by making a statement at a suitable time in the course of today's proceedings. Since then, a certain amount of time has elapsed. Inquiries have regularly been made through the evening. We have had no sign of whether or when the Chancellor intends to speak this evening. Naturally, many Opposition Members consider that 7 o'clock is a possible time for such a statement to be made.
  As we are approaching 7 o'clock, it would be helpful if the Government business managers would state, either on the Floor of the House or through the usual channels, some firm time at which a statement will be made. It would assist Opposition Members who wish to take part in the Scottish debate. Conservative Members who have dining arrangements will also be assisted, no doubt, by some clarification of the matter. We are not trying to be difficult; we are trying to get an orderly resolution of the problem. Will the Leader of the House state when the Chancellor will speak? Can we definitely expect a statement this evening and, if so, when?
  Mr. Speaker: I am not certain whether I can help in the matter. It is not within my power to say when the Chancellor will make a statement, but I shall hear the points of order.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House will agree that it is a tragedy that, over the past week, the Chancellor has made BP the subject of a Whitehall farce. If we cannot put an end to the Chancellor, surely it is time to put an end to the farce and get a statement which will reassure investors in this country and abroad.
  Mr. David Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you may not directly be able to help, but you may be able to safeguard the interests of Back Benchers and the House. The Chancellor's statement affects our constituents and the House. We ask you, if the Government dither, to do what you can in the interests of the House and of Back Benchers and in the interests of justice to those who have been placed in a difficult position in relation to the Government's share offer.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise that this is a considerable issue which must be solved. Does it do the House or any hon. Member any credit to try to make political capital out of such a vast matter? It should satisfy the House that the Chancellor has said that there will be a statement tonight. Must we teach Opposition Members the difference between night and day? Let us leave the Chancellor to do what is right for the country.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), the House is entitled to expect the Leader of the House to clarify the matter. Will you accept, Mr. Speaker, that, for the past seven years, the Government have allowed British industry to be sacrificed to provide the highest priority for the City of London? Is that sacrifice now to be in vain? Are the City of London's interests to be as disregarded as those of British manufacturing?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The only people who have been trying to make political capital are Opposition Members. We have already seen that they had the chance of a Supply day last Thursday, which they refused. Further to that, is it not the constant case—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard other hon. Members in silence. Mr. McLoughlin.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Is it not also the case, Mr. Speaker, that we have continually heard arguments from Opposition Members about a lack of time in which to discuss Scotland? When they have time to discuss Scotland, they try to bring in other issues. They show their contempt. They do not care whatsoever about Scottish issues and would rather put anything else before them.
  Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise your considerable difficulties. You are not responsible for how, when and by whom statements can be made. Through you, I remind the Leader of the House that he has responsibilities not only to the Government of the day but to the House. I invite the Leader of the House to give some idea of the Chancellor's intentions. It is not our intention to make capital out of the matter—political or otherwise. The difficulties arise because of the Chancellor's haste in trying to raise revenue out of this. We ask the Leader of the House to make a statement about the Government's intentions and, particularly, on when the Chancellor will go to the Dispatch Box.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): This is a complicated matter which needs proper consideration. During the course of the early part of this evening, we have been trying

  497
  through the usual channels, and other channels, to see whether we can fix a time. I have received a message that the Chancellor is working on the expectation of being able to make a statement at 10 pm today.
  Several Hon. Members rose —
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot do anything about this.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see that it can be a point of order for me.
  Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to clarify that the procedure that was established in the last Session will hold this Session, that once the Leader of the House has made a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to points of order made by Opposition Members, you will allow questions about that statement.
  Mr. Speaker: If a statement is made, I will treat it as a statement.
  Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the Leader of the House gives us a time. However, many hon. Members expected a statement to be made long before now. If there can be a guarantee that the statement will be made at 10 c'clock and that there will be no attempt to either not make the statement tonight or to make it at a later time, that will help us, disappointing though the response to requests for a statement has been.
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have heard what the Government Front Bench has said. I do not think that there is anything further that I can add. I do not believe that further points of order can arise. We have an important Scottish debate in which a large number of hon. Members wish to take part.
  Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to raise a point of order?
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty that arises, as I am sure you understand, is the choice of words used by the Leader of the House. I am sure that he is doing his best to help the House, but he did speak of an expectation that the Chancellor had of being able to make a statement. Given that we pursued the matter on Tuesday, that the Chancellor said that he would make a statement on Thursday and that we are now going through Thursday and have been told that there is an expectation that there will be a statement at 10 o'clock, I am sure that you appreciate the anxiety of my right hon. and hon. Friends, together with the hon. Members in other parts of the House, to ensure that that expectation is realised. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) asked for a guarantee that a statement will be made at 10 o'clock. If the Leader of the House states that a statement will be made at 10 o'clock, that will clear up the matter and we can get on with this important Scottish debate.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House realises that I cannot say anything about the matter. It is wasting time. I will hear the hon. Member.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised the uncertainty of a 10 o'clock statement. The whole question of the stock exchange collapse is based upon uncertainty and a lack of confidence. We have witnessed today a series of events in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and various others, including the Leader of the House, have added to the uncertainty. We were told first of all that the likelihood was that there would be a statement after Question Time. We were then told that the likelihood was that it would take place after the stock market had closed across the road. We are now told that the statement will not be until 10 o'clock. The Government have waited until Wall street has closed. In all this dithering and uncertainty, there is half a chance that the Government will wait until the Tokyo market has closed. It is time that they were decisive. The only way the matter can be cleared up is if the Government are decisive in their actions. All hon. Members know that.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a very good point. The delay in making a statement is not only adding to the uncertainty but is a discourtesy to the House. It does not just affect the markets. Hon. Members have been pressing all week for a statement to be made today. To save all the discussion, why cannot the Leader of the House say firmly that the statement will be at 10 o'clock?
  Mr. Tony Favell: Mr. Speaker, on a point: of order. I have been waiting to make an important speech on the Scottish Development Agency. This is my maiden. Scottish speech. Are Opposition Members in a blue funk about what I am to say?
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you understand the scepticism of Opposition Members about the assurance that has been given. The Government have twice this week been less than frank in their dealings with the House and the promises they have made. The first occasion was when the Chancellor said quite plainly that he was anxious to hear the views of the House before he made any decision about the BP share offer. He has made no attempt to hear the views of the House on that. The second occasion was this afternoon, when we were told that the Government would inform the House about this in a way that was most convenient and helpful to hon. Members. The minimum requirement of all hon. Members is to know precisely when that statement is to be made, and that has not been fulfilled.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to make a small contribution to the debate that we have been enjoying on the Scottish Development Agency. Is it not irresponsible of the spokesmen on behalf of the underwriters on the Opposition Benches to demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he make a statement at a time when he is considering a difficult and complex matter? It does no credit to the House to prevent the Chancellor from undertaking his responsibilities in a most careful and considered manner.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are not

  499
  responsible for the actions or inactions of the Government, but you are responsible for trying to maintain order in the House. Had the Government said through the usual channels that there would be a statement this evening and arranged a time, there would have been no need for hon. Members to raise points of order to find out what was going on, which has resulted in the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) being delayed and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland being prevented from taking part in the debate.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to announce a simple decision—whether he will hold the sale. He is at loggerheads with the Prime Minister about the decision. They have not yet decided. It is not a matter of him having to sort out the detail of the statement. That is very simple. If Scottish Members are to have the opportunity to continue the important debate without further interruption, the Leader of the House has an obligation to you to give the guarantee that the House is seeking that there will be a statement at 10 o'clock as to whether the sale of BP shares will continue. The Leader of the House must help you out of your dilemma and give us that guarantee, Mr. Speaker.
  Several Hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call further hon. Members, I repeat what the shadow Leader of the House has said. Many hon. Members from Scottish constituencies are anxious to take part in this important debate. After all, it is an adjourned debate. It would be a great pity for them and for their constituents if they were prevented from doing so because of points of order, that, frankly I cannot answer, and that the House recognises that I cannot answer.
  Mr. Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not irresponsible of Opposition Members to demand a statement at a fixed time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is clearly satisfying requirements for consultation in the contract with the underwriters? If he did not satisfy that requirement for consultation, the situation would be far worse because it would involve litigation about the money that is owed, in which case it would have a great effect upon public expenditure. Therefore, it is wrong to demand that he give a statement at this stage of those delicate consultations.
  Mr. Galbraith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has said that he is anxious to make a speech in the Scottish debate. I await that contribution with bated breath. It would be a great help to everyone if the Leader of the House will make it clear that there will definitely be a statement at 10 o'clock. There will then be no further delay in our hearing the words of wisdom of the hon. Member for Stockport about Scotland.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that political capital is about the only kind of profit that anyone is likely to make out of BP shares. Shortly before the points of order were raised, it was being claimed on the news that the statement would be made tomorrow. If the Leader of the House cannot give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the statement will be made at 10 pm today,
  500
  will he give an assurance that if it is not to be made at 10 pm he will return to the Dispatch Box at that time to give us a progress report? It is quite wrong that we should be kept in the dark about this.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you cannot command the Government to make a statement to the House, but I understand that you are in a position to accept a dilatory motion at any time so that the matter can be debated. In the present circumstances, perhaps you would be prepared to say that if a statement is not forthcoming at 10 pm you will grant such a motion so that the issue can be aired on that basis. We should all prefer to have the statement, but it would set many minds at rest if you would make it clear that in your view the issue must be resolved today and not put off until tomorrow.
  Mr. Nellist: Returning to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that when the Leader of the House came to the Dispatch Box his purpose was to give information, not to ask for your ruling on a point of order. In the four and a half years since I became a Member of Parliament, it has been your practice once a Minister has intervened in that way, to allow questions on that intervention on the basis that it constituted a statement. I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question if you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: If the Leader of the House does not answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I cannot do much about it.
  Mr. Nellist: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether the Leader of the House can give a cast-iron guarantee that the statement that he indicated as a possibility in three hours' time will be made first in this Chamber. In recent days, the Chancellor has been wining and dining with the spivs in the City and sharing his thoughts with them, but the elected representatives of working people who will stand to lose most from the privatisation plan are the last to be informed of the arrangements. Can the Leader of the House say whether the Chancellor will be coming here at 10 o'clock, or will the statement be made in Threadneedle street?
  Mr. John Smith: The Leader of the House can see the apprehension felt about this, at least among the Opposition. He intervened in our proceedings not to make a business statement but to pass on a message handed to him by an emissary from the Chancellor saying that there was an expectation that the Chancellor might come here at 10 o'clock. The obligations of the Leader of the House are to the House and in my submission those obligations are more important than any other in these circumstances. He can solve the whole matter quite quickly by making a business statement to the effect that there will be a statement at 10 pm tonight and that it will be to this House that the Chancellor intimates whatever decision he has arrived at. I think that I can say on behalf of the Opposition that if the Leader of the House can give an assurance that there will be a statement at 10 o'clock and leave the matter at that, we shall be happy to proceed with the business before us.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: It is obvious that the content of the statement is rather more important than the exact time at which it is made. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with his usual perceptiveness, has

  501
  reminded the House that the time in Washington and Tokyo is slightly different from the time in London. As we all hope that the statement will be put not just in a national but in an international context, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may have very good reasons for not giving a precise time for his statement at this stage.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can carry this matter any further. I call Mr. Favell to continue the debate.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: I did not expect to make my maiden Scottish speech amid so much excitement or to be met with such transparent delaying tactics from the Opposition. It is a pleasure to address the House on this important matter. Having sat through the entire debate, I have learnt a great deal about the way in which the Labour party operates.
  On the whole, the Scottish Development Agency has had a very good press and I doubt whether there are many political points to be gained by Conservative Members in attacking it.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the possibility of setting up similar development agencies in England, including the north-west?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is about the Scottish Development Agency. It should not be taken wider than that.
  Mr. Favell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for guiding us back to the important matter before us, in which there is so much interest. I shall deal very briefly with my hon. Friend's point by saying that the Scots are privileged indeed to have £136 million per annum of United Kingdom taxpayers' money spent on attracting to Scotland investment which might otherwise have gone to the north-west of England, the north-east of England or elsewhere. That money comes from taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. Indeed, it comes mainly from England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) made clear.
  What is all that money spent on? It is spent on loans, improvement of derelict land and the provision of cheap business premises. The agency is serviced by 700 employees, all anxious to advise and assist people to invest in Scotland and not elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I take it that the hon. Gentleman will not mind our circulating his comments, which are clearly an attack on the Scottish Development Agency, around all the constituencies in Scotland, especially those still held by Tory Members.
  Mr. Favell: I am not attacking the Scottish Development Agency. It is a wonderful idea for Scotland. I am simply pointing out that it is a unique privilege enjoyed by the Scots at the expense of the English and the Scots should be grateful to the English for providing the money to pay for it.
  Mr. Maxton: I wonder whether the hon. Members for Stockport (Mr. Favell) and for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) intend to force a Division and vote against the Bill in view of their great opposition to the Scottish Development Agency.
  Mr. Favell: I repeat that I am not against the Scottish Development Agency. I am simply saying that the Scots ought to be grateful for it. I am happy for them. The United Kingdom taxpayer is pouring a lot of money into Scotland. The Scots should be particularly grateful because unemployment in the north of England is worse than it is in Scotland. In my area, the north-west, unemployment is worse than in Scotland, yet we do not enjoy the benefits of a development agency.
  Recent statistics have shown that Scotland is more prosperous than any other region of the country, except East Anglia and the south-east.
  Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland is not a region, but a country? Will he please refer to it as a country—not as a region?
  Mr. Favell: I did not refer to Scotland as a region; it is a country. It is more prosperous than any region of the United Kingdom except for the south-east and East Anglia, and good luck to it. It is also lucky for Scotland that the taxpayers are still pouring money into the Scottish Development Agency. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) pointed out, public expenditure per head of population far exceeds that in England. It is one third as much again. So Scotland, with its development agency, enjoys a special privilege, not only because of those 700 employees all busily working for Scotland—so they should; that is what they are there for — but because they are provided by the United Kingdom taxpayer. Let Scotland not forget that.
  What is more, the Scottish Development Agency—the largest owner of industrial land in Scotland — is providing cheap industrial land, which the rest of the United Kingdom cannot have. Funded by the taxpayer, it can provide business premises at a cost that is quite impossible in many other regions of the United Kingdom. Why should the Scots enjoy that special privilege? Scotland has gone through a difficult time—
  Mr. McKelvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware — he must be as it has been mentioned often — of the disparity in numbers between Conservative and Labour hon. Members who represent constituencies in Scotland? Seventy-six per cent. of the people of Scotland voted against the Conservative Government. Does the hon. Gentleman join us, considering that he thinks we are so well looked after, in saying that we would be better off if we were granted our own assembly with tax-raising powers?
  Mr. Favell: I greatly admire and love Scotland. I visit it once a year or more. I like its people, its countryside and what it has contributed to the United Kingdom. However, if Scotland chooses to separate, that is a matter for it. I would be sad if it left. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, a Scottish Assembly is the first step on the way to a separate country. I have many Scottish friends; in Stockport, there are many Scotsmen and relatives of Scots. There are Scots girls who are married to English boys, and vice versa. To pretend that the rest of the United Kingdom does not like, support or give financial assistance to Scotland is rot.
  Mr. McKelvey: The Government have wrecked Scotland.
  Mr. Favell: Socialism is wrecking Scotland. Scotland's greatness was built on the back of free enterprise and of

  503
  entrepreneurs who travelled the world and brought wealth to Scotland. Its greatness was built through the great financial institutions that are still in Edinburgh, and that were decried by an earlier speaker, who said that they should be swept away. Scotland's greatness lies in the fact that it is a great tourist attraction. People come from all over the world to visit its castles, and to decry them is idiocy. In my part of the United Kingdom we should be only too grateful to have that sort of benefit.
  I have found the squabbling over what is happening in Dundee with the unions at the new Ford plant very interesting. As someone who sits outside, I can issue a little warning. The onlooker sees all. Living as I do in Stockport I can see what has happened to Liverpool through trade union militancy. No one will invest in Liverpool because they cannot obtain co-operation from the work force. Scotland is not far behind with that type of reputation. Memories are still long of what happened on the upper Clyde and at Linwood. Gartcosh and Linwood would still exist if they had not been wrecked by trade union militancy.
  Such people have only themselves to blame, and my message to Scotland is, "Stop bleating. The rest of the United Kingdom admires, your historical achievements, and the way in which you discovered and administered the empire."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not keep attributing all these things to me.
  Mr. Favell: As a fellow Yorkshireman, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can well understand your concern.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am a Lancastrian.
  Mr. Favell: A little friendly rivalry never did anyone any harm.
  My message to Scotland is as follows: "We in England admire the way that you discovered and administered the empire and built up your great banking and insurance institutions — in other words, your great pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit. We do not like your Socialist dependence, so roll up your sleeves and get on with it."
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I am sure that most hon. Members will have been entertained this afternoon by English Members who have come along to lecture us, but I do not think that we have been informed about what is happening in Scotland.
  I want to discuss comments made by the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell). Considering the economic problems that we have in Scotland, it angers us more than a little to listen to two hon. Gentlemen who have been wheeled in to pad out the debate for the Government. The hon. Member for Darlington suggested that the Scots are doing so well that, to quote a famous Conservative phrase, we have never had it so good. I say to him that we have major problems, and the kind of lecture that he gave us does not go down well with Opposition Members or the Scottish people.
  The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) spoke too, and, on reflection, I believe that he contributed more to the previous debate when he was asleep than he did this afternoon. Once again,
  504
  Opposition Members are being accused of whining, girning and whingeing about our problems. However, in Scotland there are 330,000 people, most of whom elected Labour Members of Parliament to argue cogently and constructively on their behalf in the House. The English contribution to the debate is a disgrace, given that English hon. Members are treating with contempt the major problems that face those 330,000 people.
  The debate has shown that we take the matter seriously. It is unusual to have two bites at the cherry, but because of the incompetence of the Government's business managers last Wednesday we have had two opportunities to debate some serious economic issues. It would be easy to gloat about that inefficiency, but the matters before us are too serious for that. The gulf between the real economy in Scotland and the financial economy that is supported by the Government has become enormous. The gulf between the Government's claims about Scotland and the plight of thousands of Scots on the dole queue has become enormous. The gulf between the aspirations of the Scottish people and the lack of interest shown by the Government is also enormous.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Darlington said that Scotland was doing well out of regional development grant, selective assistance and many other things. In 1982–83, on figures supplied by the Library, Scotland received £343 million in regional development grant, adjusted to 1986–87 prices. This year it is expected that the sum will be £66 million. While the Government are trying to promote their enterprise culture in Scotland with little effect or political support, they must not obscure the fact that there has been a major dininution in the amount of cash injected into Scotland to tackle some of the problems that I have mentioned.
  Major areas are associated with the work of the SDA. The Opposition support the SDA. However, I reiterate that is is not unqualified support because there are many things that we should like the agency to do that it is not doing. We should like to think that if it were properly funded and supported enthusiastically by the Government the SDA could fulfil a much more adventurous and exciting role in the Scottish economy. Many colleagues have mentioned investment. The SDA must also consider employment and industrial output, which is increasing but not much above the 1979 levels.
  I should like to identify some of the factors that underline the seriousness with which the debate should be viewed, and to try to focus attention on the serious problems from which the people of Scotland are suffering and which we in this Chamber are seeking to express to the Government.
  It was widely believed that in view of the general election result the Government would take the problems of Scotland seriously, but unfortunately it appears that because of the result they are pushing further ahead with some policies that are alien. It seems that the Government are disengaging themselves from Scottish industry. The financial facts suggest that. They seem to be disinterested. I see that the hon. Member for Stockport has decided that a cup of coffee is more important than listening to me. That is the level that we have reached in the Chamber. More importantly, the Conservative party is now identified as the party of disinvestment in Scotland.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Has the hon. Gentleman read the report in the Glasgow Herald today of the Fraser of Allander Institute, which seems to contradict much of what he has just said?
  Mr. McLeish: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads The Scotsman of 28 October, where there is a headline:
  "Business brisk although jobs lost".
  I refer him to the third paragraph in the first column of the article and the top of the second column. Business reports in the press and speculation by universities show that they have mixed views about what is going on.
  Dr. Godman: May I point out to my hon. Friend that a reading of tomorrow's papers will he gloomy, especially for people on the lower Clyde? I have just been told that Scott Lithgow is to announce within the next 24 hours another several hundred redundancies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly repulsive and offensive when English Conservative Members say that Scotland is a prosperous nation? Areas in Scotland such as the one that I represent are suffering grievously from unemployment. From tomorrow the problems will worsen.
  Mr. McLeish: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention because it highlights and reinforces the necessity for a debate and the importance that we in the Opposition attach to it.
  There are continuing job losses on a large scale. I should like to mention three or four areas that reinforce the dilemma. I refer first not to some ideologically motivated paper but to the "Labour Market Quarterly Report", which I believe Ministers in the Scottish team read. It shows a curious development over the past three years. While in the United Kingdom as a whole unemployment has been coming down—based on some spurious reasons—in Scotland there has been a small drop in unemployment. Today Conservative Members have claimed that the number of people in work in Scotland has risen. In fact, over the past three years the number of people in work in Scotland has dropped, whereas in England and Wales the number in work has increased. When one measures the diminution of employment in Scotland against England and Wales, it is clear that once again the Scottish Office does not have a great deal to be proud of. We are lagging behind.
  Secondly, Conservative Members suggest that we are always talking about unemployment. Let us talk about training—effective training, not YTS or the new JTS. A recent business survey in Scotland shows that 35 per cent. of a large number of major firms argue that they have skill shortages. With 330,000 people on the dole queue in Scotland, they still have skill shortages. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to comment on that problem.
  The third aspect to which I should like to refer is long-term unemployment. I come back to the hon. Member for Darlington and his complacent, heavy-handed approach to sensitive areas in Scotland. There are 142,212 people who have been unemployed for more than a year. Are we just to write them off? Are we to see that against the background of the speeches that have been made tonight, or can we strike a chord with the Government so that they say, "Yes, there is a problem," and shake them from the complacency that grips them now?
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he was one of the Labour Members of Parliament who opposed the investment of
  506
  about £300 million for a new private hospital to be built on the banks of the river Clyde? [Interruption.] Can you tell me whether you were in favour of that or against it? It seems that members of your party opposed that investment on purely political partisan grounds.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise hon. Members who have not had much experience in the House that we refer to other hon. Members in the third person. The hon. Gentleman must not use the expression "you" in a way that implies that I have responsibility for things for which I am not responsible.
  Mr. McLeish: I hope that I shall not need to respond as I was not asked about my views on that development on Clydebank. I was talking about young people—
  Mr. Riddick: Answer.
  Mr. McLeish: I was never asked about that subject.
  The fourth matter to which I shall refer is young people. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that in 1981 42 per cent. of all children who left school in Scotland found work? In 1986 the figure dropped to 25 per cent. Long-term unemployment, adult unemployment and the lack of training of young people show that the Government neither care nor have any policies to tackle those problems.
  I should like to respond further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). CBI in Scotland, the business community, which is no great lover of the Labour party, said today that nearly one third of 120 firms that took part in a survey recently had cut their work force in the past four months and some 37 per cent. forecast that they would employ fewer people over the next four months. Is that the burning success of the enterprise culture that the Government speak of? We have a crisis in Scotland and I utterly reject the suggestion that Opposition Members are always trying to do down the country. We were sent here to undertake a task. We appreciate many of the significant developments which are taking place, but we must also advocate long-term structural employment. I say to the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is in charge of the Government Front Bench at present, that Opposition Members understand the changing industrial structure of Scotland. Like the Scots, we understand the changing employment patterns and the impact of new technology.
  It was grossly insulting when, on a recent visit to Scotland, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hectored and lectured the Scots on being out of step. It is the Government's current fashion to claim that Scotland is out of step with reality and with the Government. Would it not be more modest to suggest that the Government are completely out of step with the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people? When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster comes up north again and enjoys his pint of beer —which he does according to recent press coverage—I hope that he will try to understand our problems in Scotland so that we do not recreate up north the debacle we have heard in some of tonight's speeches.
  The Scottish Development Agency is one of our most important tools for the regeneration of the Scottish economy. Some people believe it has been emasculated and others believe that it operates without many friends on the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Darlington came as close as possible to suggesting two options — to take the SDA out of existence or to

  507
  privatise it. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the hon. Gentleman's comments do not reflect the Scottish Office view of the permanence of the SDA, as we believe that the agency should be supported.
  We want the Ford development in Dundee and Japanese and American investment in our new towns. A few drops of rain will never turn a desert into a garden, but I hope that the Minister will take the message from the Scottish people and Scottish statistics, and listen to Opposition Members, and that he will accept that we must have an effective planned programme for investment, employment and training in Scotland. If he did that, he would have our support. But the Government continue to ignore with contempt the real needs of the Scottish people. Therefore, they will not receive our support.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The debate is very interesting for several reasons. We have heard speeches from the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who were not present for the earlier part of the debate. I make no complaint about that as, in my opinion, the amount of criticism that English Members receive for not religiously attending Scottish debates is overdone. The speeches made by both those two hon. Members this evening are significant because they make the Government's Front Bench declared position even more difficult to sustain.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made the important point that there is a potential crisis of confidence within the SDA, as a result of the Government's equivocation about its future. The contributions made by Conservative Members this evening will serve only to heighten that uncertainty and anxiety. If there is an ascendant tendency in the Conservative party and throughout the United Kingdom, the hon. Member for Darlington is more in tune with that tendency, which is making progress, than is the Minister of State. The lack of enthusiasm with which the Minister opened the debate was also commented upon.
  There is a need to pose the question whether the SDA will survive during the next five years the new thrust of the coming men who have taken control of the upper echelons of the Conservative party — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) makes an intervention from a sedentary position. I look forward to his comments because he is another of the same tendency, although he has relatives in my constituency who are wonderful people. That does not absolve him from advertising in his register of special interests a predeliction for denationalisation and contracting out—which is significant in itself.
  If these are the young men who are the future of the Conservative party, the SDA is right to be anxious about its own future.
  The hon. Member for Stockport made a very bad speech. I do not often say that about hon. Members' speeches, but I think that that speech will read very ill in the Official Report. He may have left the Chamber to go and correct it. If so, we are grateful for small mercies.
  The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, must be careful about using statistics as holy writ as they appear to have been doing. Of course an argument can be made from the official figures on those in work and claiming
  508
  benefit that, while the Scottish trends are bad, they do not compare all that unfairly with some in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, the bald statistics of unemployment are not in themselves a conclusive indicator to take when we are discussing the need for action on industrial regeneration and development. Social factors and environmental conditions are just as appropriate and important. We all know of localised areas, hidden within the national figures, which show Scotland as the worst affected in Europe—indeed, the European Community explicitly recognises that. However, Conservative Members may not recognise the special remit and important role of the SDA in environmental work and land reclamation.
  For those reasons, as much as any others, we deeply resent the gratuitous attacks made by English Members. If we were debating Teesside, or even the leafy suburbs of Stockport, I would not glory in telling hon. Members representing those areas that they were better off than we are in Scotland. I hope I would appreciate that they, too, have problems, and seek to get together to solve them as best we can.
  It is perfectly legitimate for the people of Scotland to give a higher priority to industrial development and regeneration. If we had a Scottish assembly—in which case the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood would not be trammelled with Scottish business in this House —we would give such matters much higher priority. I accept that the public purse is not unlimited, but we would make it a priority to achieve industrial and environmental regeneration in Scotland—certainly if we had the kind of assembly that we feel is necessary to meet the needs of our time. The tone of the debate took an unfortunate turn when English Members contributed. I say that not because they are English, but because they are ignorant.
  Other hon. Members have said that we should acknowledge that the agency is in new hands. Let me therefore refer to Ian Robertson, the new chief executive, and Professor Neil Hood, the director of Locate in Scotland. We wish them well in their new functions in future. In my view, if the agency did not exist in Scotland, we should have to take steps to create it.
  This debate is principally about financial allocations and limitations. However, it is not only about money, but about the style and approach adopted by the agency since 1975. Its present approach is based on partnership, and that sits comfortably with my party's political philosophy. I appreciate that one of the things that have bedevilled the SDA since its inception is the changing economic climate. Plainly, that has a bearing on what it does. However, there has also been a change in political climate. There have been speeches on the Left-wing side of the argument, such as that from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who clearly wanted a much more interventionist agency. That received the inevitable knee-jerk or Pavlovian response from the Conservative Benches that this was unfettered Socialism and therefore, by definition and in principle, to be rejected out of hand. Conversely, the Minister of State, when he opened the debate, talked about the free engine of capitalism, which was his perception of what the agency should be doing. That in turn was rejected by Labour Members as out of hand.
  It may be said that this is a typical Liberal position, but I believe that there is a very positive and sensible intermediate stage. Indeed, the agency has adopted such an approach in practice, and it has patently been

  509
  successful. A sensible measure of partnership provides a balance between public funds and private money. However, such a partnership is important for more than just economic reasons. Those of us with constituencies north of the border have all witnessed how the SDA can provide a focus for all sorts of different agencies—voluntary organisations, statutory bodies, such as the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, local authorities and, indeed, individual entrepreneurs. It can come in and seize the opportunity to crystallise a development as no other agency or organisation easily could. I think that the style of partnership achieved by the agency is splendid. It should be promoted and built upon.
  The flexible. innovatory and pump-priming role that the SDA has had since 1975 gives it the opportunity to make an impact over wide areas of interest which are of crucial importance to the economic life of Scotland. They include the key functions of creating jobs and dealing with urban decay. The Prime Minister, trailing her handbag around the urban wastelands of Britain, has got it substantially wrong—as experience has proved—if she believes that every £1 of public money can be expected to generate £10 of private investment. We have seen from the SDA's operations in the Leith project and many others that, while it is true that public money can seed private investment, substantial urban regeneration cannot possibly be taken on with such a ratio. If the Prime Minister expects the SDA to deliver on that basis, she will almost certainly be disappointed.
  I was sorry that the Minister of State did not say a bit more, as he had the opportunity to do, about the support for indigenous companies. When we are discussing job creation and the eradication of urban decay, indigenous companies can become rather lost in the argument about introducing new companies and inward investment. One of my most positive experiences in my previous incarnation as a solicitor was helping to set up a community business. No hon. Member has said anything about community businesses, but the SDA has played a positive role in seeding and promoting such businesses. Community businesses are non-profit-making charitable trusts, companies limited by guarantee, which provide jobs from within the ranks of the unemployed. Again, such enterprises need to be seeded by professionals who can give a lead. However, I believe that there is a great future, and unrealised potential, especially in urban areas, for the development of community businesses.
  I began by talking about job creation and urban decay because I recognise that the main burden of work must fall in those areas. However, it would be silly of me not to acknowledge — especially representing the constituency that I represent — that vast tracts of Scotland suffer from problems which, which they may not be of the same magnitude in relative terms are no less great for that. Substantial problems face those who live in rural areas.
  There is confusion about the provision of assistance in the Minister of State's own part of Scotland. The south-west and the south-east of Scotland, as he knows, are not covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board or by the SDA. The focus of its activities lies in the central industrial belt. Rural areas such as Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and Roxburgh and Berwickshire are not development areas and are in limbo. Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) argued in favour of the establishment of a rural development fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye
  510
  (Mr. Kennedy) made the same point. It is essential to increase the agency's funds, if for no other reason than to seed more rural initiatives.
  We have had the benefit of DRAW and PRIDE, but such initiatives have come and gone, and there is uncertainty whether the outstanding schemes that are on the Minister's desk will be approved. I join other right hon. and hon Members in asking the Minister to make a statement about that tonight. If he does not, it will be remiss of him and it will cause a great deal of anger among those who are still waiting for the go-ahead for their projects.
  With a modest amount of money there is a great deal of scope for the SDA to provide rural development in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale as well as in Roxburgh and Berwickshire. It could, for example, promote small businesses and tourism, in conjunction with the Scottish Tourist Board. It could also engage in land renewal projects, of which there are many at planning stage waiting for finance.
  The Minister referred to the fact that the SDA will be very much involved in engineering and food processing. Local authorities and many other people in rural areas realise that there is much to be gained from the processing of agricultural produce in rural areas instead of sending it to industrial areas to be processed. That could generate considerable wealth for rural areas. If that is true of agricultural produce, it is also true of fish processing. The fish-catching industry continues to experience difficulties, but in my constituency, elsewhere along the coast of eastern Scotland and in the islands there is a massive potential for the development of the fish-processing industry. The injection of a modest amount of Government money could lead to the creation of wealth within those areas.
  The regional council in the Borders has found that industrial building has been gradually siphoned off and withdrawn since its industrial development status was withdrawn. It has now to rely exclusively on private investment to meet that need. Rural initiatives that are set up and established by the SDA cannot be maintained by the local authorities, because they do not have sufficient money. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) said that the cuts in the rate support grant had had a major bearing on such initiatives.
  Furthermore, the SDA cannot take properly into account all the social factors. That puts areas such as my own and the Minister's constituency at a disadvantage. There are many land renewal schemes, such as that in Hawick. If additional funds could be made available to the SDA, such ambitious but modest plans would transform the biggest town in my constituency. When rural development status was taken away from my area in 1984, it thought that it would continue to enjoy some priority of funding from the SDA, but it does not now think that it enjoys that status.
  The key question is whether the SDA's potential is being fully realised. The debate about whether Government funding of the agency is increasing or decreasing is, to an extent, academic. I am on the side of the hon. Member for Garscadden. There is a great deal of confusion about this, and if the Minister could clarify the position it would be helpful.
  A point that has not been mentioned so far is that the SDA appears to be under a great deal of pressure to realise its assets in order to make up the shortfall in its budget.

  511
  That, if true, is a short-term policy and ties in with what I said earlier: that when its assets are sold off the SDA's very future existence will be in doubt.
  I reinforce the point that was made earlier about the uncertainty that has been caused by the current review of regional aid. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the next five years the Government will have a great deal of money to spend, but we shall have to wait for another two and a half hours to find out whether or not his forecast has changed. The injection of sensible—not extravagant—amounts of public money over the next five years would provide us with the opportunity to tackle unemployment in Scotland and to support the new industries that are needed to regenerate our environment and restructure and modernise our economy. I am in no doubt that the result of a moderate but continuous increase in funding would lead to significant progress being made in all these areas.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I came into the House half way through the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). The good news was that I was late; the bad news was that I had to listen to the other half of his speech. I was reminded of what I said during my maiden speech: that we should savour such moments as when the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross addresses the House. I said also in my maiden speech that at the next general election the Scottish Tory will be no more. I made that forecast on 8 July, at three minutes past eight in the evening. The speeches I have heard so far from colleagues of Scottish Ministers with constituencies south of the border will certainly add to the demise of the Tory party in Scotland.
  It is interesting that I should be following the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I have nothing against him personally, but when my little daughter went through my diary and found that I intended to speak on the Scottish Development Agency—she is eight years old in December — she said, "Father, I'm beginning to worry a bit about you since you've gone down to that place. What are you doing discussing the Severely Divided Alliance?" I said to her, "It's not that at all, my young, little, loving daughter. You know that your father would not engage himself in such indulgence." She had been looking through "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" and had found that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) and I have two things in common: first, that we are not over-impressed with the present leader of the Social Democratic party, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and, secondly, that we share the same birthday. I am not giving any prizes to hon. Members who guess which one is two years younger. I assure all hon. Members, and my little eight-year-old daughter, that this is where the resemblance finishes.
  I watched the Front Bench, and in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell). I saw the Minister's split personality; part of him wished he was saying those things
  512
  —he certainly supports that type of nonsensical philosophy — and part of him was embarrassed, as indeed he should be.
  It is regrettable that the Government ran away, as they have done on so many occasions, from the real problems of the Scottish economy. One may ask why they ran and the answer is that the Tory Government are the cause of the rundown of the Scottish economy. When I hear the nonsense from Conservative Members about how well off we are in Scotland, it is clear that they do not see the misery and the deprivation that exists in my constituency, which is no different, and in some cases, not as bad as other constituencies in Scotland. I am sure that the old-age pensioners who have spent years on waiting lists for hip operations, the kids of 19 or 20 who have left school and have no jobs and the people who have been subjected, as they have all over the country, to rising crime rates, will be interested to hear such speeches from Conservative Members, telling us how well we are doing in Scotland. That is absolute nonsense.
  This Government have devastated Scotland's industrial base. They have destroyed the coal and steel industries, the fishing and shipbuilding industries. My constituency is in a large rural area destroyed by rural deprivation, by the cuts in the public transport system, the post office and school closures. This Government have destroyed community life as we know it.
  Not satisfied with their sadistic monetarist dogma, their continual obsession is to take away from a community education and health services that are based on the needs of the community and replace them with education and health services that provide for the needs of those who can pay for them. That is a nonsensical and indeed a disgraceful state of affairs. As I said to the Government last week, "Shame on you," because we could be discussing Scottish industry in more detail today if we had been allowed to continue last week's debate.
  When I saw the hon. Member for Stirling rise to the Dispatch Box to make his first speech and move the closure I was upset, to say the least, because it was the same hon. Member who not only hid from the real debate last week—that was bad enough—but who was sitting on the SHARPEN report. Hon. Members may now be aware of that report. I received a late copy, which the hon. Member for Stirling was keeping from the House, and from the Scottish health boards and the health councils. Had it not been for my intervention last week, the Sharpen report — the "Scottish Health Authorities' Review of Priorities into the Eighties and Nineties" would still be under wraps.
  There are 11 hospitals and four health centres in my constituency, all of which provide health care for a wide population. In employment and health care terms, we need direct investment from the Government and indirect investment from the SDA. The House can imagine my anxiety and anger on discovering that not only were the Government refusing to answer the needs of my constituency, but they were secretly planning to destroy the Health Service in Scotland. Their proposals would affect my constituency more than most.
  The report recommends that expenditure on the mentally ill and mentally handicapped should be reduced. It also proposes the amalgamation of maternity units in general hospitals which have fewer than 1,500 deliveries a year. That proposal would immediately threaten with closure or partial closure the William Smellie Memorial

  513
  hospital in Lanark and the Motherwell maternity hospital. The report recommends a programme of fostering the elderly and other groups in the community. Last week, I described that as the Tories' "Foster-a-granny programme". Instead of providing proper health care for the elderly, we have the obnoxious prospect of foster parents for grannies. It is outrageous, and I look forward to the day when we can debate it more fully.
  The Government's proposals for the Scottish Health Service must not be carried out. I accuse the Government of duplicity in their attempt to keep the report secret. I believe that they intended to present the report in legislation as a fait accompli. I assure hon. Members that the Scottish people and Labour Members will oppose this iniquitious report and expose it for what it is: another disgraceful piece of the Prime Minister's experimental, dogmatic monetarism, with no regard for the health care of the poor and sick.
  The speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members tonight provide a good argument for devolution. But the Ministers here tonight are the lackeys of the people who make the decisions, and the Prime Minister has more in common with those who are attacking Scotland than anyone else. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate and I hope that the day will come when we hear from some of those—I understand that there are one or two on the Government Benches— who care a little bit about Scotland, even if only through self-interest. As I said the other night to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, and the others who make up the 10 Tories out of the 72 Scottish Members, if the Government do not respond to the needs of the Scottish people, the Scottish Tory will disappear after the next general election.
  8.3 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is savagely apposite that I am talking about the Scottish Development Agency and the Inverclyde initiative at a time when hundreds of families in my constituency are discussing fearfully the rumours and speculation surrounding Scott Lithgow. Tonight on the Scottish television programme "Scotland Today" it was claimed that hundreds of men will be made redundant at Scott Lithgow very soon. That is sombre news, and it has more strength than unconstructed press speculation. I left the Chamber to make a telephone call to a constituent who works at Scott Lithgow. He said that that was the rumour circulating throughout the yard late this afternoon.
  As the Minister knows, the yard has only one contract, to build the Britoil rig Ocean Alliance, which is due to be floated out of the yard within the next fortnight to the tail of the bank so that the final work can be carried out on the rig. Then she will leave the Clyde for ever, and my deep fear is that the jobs of 1,200 men will go at the same time.
  Ministers despise the honestly awkward critic in the Opposition as much as they deplore the awkwardly honest critics on their Benches. I plead with the Minister to give emergency help to the people in my constituency—to those honourable, decent, fine men who work on the Britoil rig.
  he Scottish Development Agency has an important role to play in the revival and growth of the Scottish economy. Its role becomes increasingly significant day by day in my constituency. It has to reactivate and, in some cases, to resuscitate the local economy. Against the background of the impending redundancies and the massively high
  514
  unemployment in my constituency, I wish to discuss the role of the SDA — in the shape of the Inverclyde initiative—in the revival and growth of the economy of the lower Clyde.
  In his annual report for 1987, that famous Greenockian, Sir Robin Duthie, the chairman of the SDA, said this about the Inverclyde initiative:
  "Based in the community, the Inverclyde Initiative is supported by local government and the Agency, and spans the full range of economic development. Now in its second year, the Initiative has made substantial progress towards its goal of revitalising the area by broadening its economic base. Progress has been made in three major areas—commercial property development, factory provision and training."
  With respect to Sir Robin, I must disagree with what, in today's circumstances, is an over-optimistic view of the Inverclyde initiative.
  The report may contain a coded message for Scottish Office Ministers. I hope that they are listening. The Inverclyde initiative is changing character. The original idea of the initiative being steered or driven by the private sector has been a failure. That realisation must be a bleak disappointment to those who put forward the concept of private sector involvement. Over a period, the initiative has developed into a traditional public sector activity increasingly dependent upon the SDA, the Inverclyde district council and Strathclyde regional council. The initiative's changing role takes place amidst the deeply disturbing economic circumstances of the lower Clyde. The industrial structure of Inverclyde has experienced and suffered major changes in the past 10 years. Manufacturing employment has declined from over 50 per cent. of total employment to below 35 per cent. Shipbuilding employment has fallen from more than 9,000 in 1977 to fewer than 2,600 today. If the stories about Scott Lithgow today are accurate, that low figure will be much lower early in the new year.
  In 1979, Scott Lithgow employed fully 7,400 men. Some of the rumours circulating in Greenock and Port Glasgow today speak of the yard being put on to a care and maintenance footing early in the new year. Inverclyde is now dominated by a very small number of large employers — IBM, Scott Lithgow with its precarious future, National Semi-Conductor and Playtex.
  Since March 1985, when the Inverclyde initiative was set up, the local economy has declined further. Twenty-one companies have closed with the loss of more than 1,000 jobs. Notified redundancies from January 1985 to August 1987 amounted to almost 3,000. Unemployment in the Greenock travel-to-work area is well over 9,000 and seems likely to increase. That represents an unemployment rate now, using the Government's figures from the local jobcentre, of over 20 per cent. That figure can be compared with 18·1 per cent. in Strathclyde, 13·4 per cent. for Scotland as a whole and 11·5 per cent. for Great Britain. Male unemployment in my constituency now is about 25 per cent. Indeed, I can be a little more accurate. The latest figures that I have seen from the jobcentre show a male unemployment rate based on Government figures of 24·8 per cent.
  Against that bleak backdrop, the Secretary of State for Scotland encouraged the SDA to consider giving further support in Inverclyde. As a result, one more official was appointed to the team. That is a tiny addition in the light of what needs to be done by the Inverclyde team. I must state here and now that the Inverclyde team is made up of very hard-working, honourable and decent public

  515
  officials. I have enormous respect for Donald Draffen and his too small team with its inadequate budget. The Secretary of State has declined to give the Inverclyde initiative an identified budget and argued that, if appropriate development is identified, finance will be made available. That added finance is desperately needed, given the economic problems facing the lower Clyde.
  There is at the moment a small advance factory building programme under way in Port Glasgow. However, the scale of that development is wholly inadequate in terms of the problems facing the communities. It is essential that Inverclyde is identified as a prime location for inward investment and recognised as a priority by Locate in Scotland. I believe that the investment that has taken place in recent years has gone to areas identified by Locate in Scotland and not to areas identified by incoming investors. I have to say that with deep regret. Some of the inward investment should have come to Inverclyde over and above what has come our way in the form of assistance with the National Semi-Conductor and other developments.
  The scale of the problem is immense. The Government have rejected out of hand setting up a fund for the retraining and redeployment of redundant shipyard workers. There has been discussion between the Inverclyde initiative and British Shipbuilders Ltd. with a view to further activity in Inverclyde, but to date that has not led anywhere. Again, that is a matter for regret. We should have something analogous with the British Shipbuilders Ltd. enterprise agency. That is desperately needed in Inverclyde.
  It is also now essential that a part of Greenock or Port Glasgow be declared an enterprise zone. I have no doubt that the financial and economic benefits of an enterprise zone supported by the resources of the SDA would reactivate the Inverclyde economy. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the case for the Inverclyde enterprise zone. I fear that his Cabinet colleagues are less than enthusiastic supporters of any form of regional assistance. Their indifference or hostility may harm the chances of an enterprise zone being set up in Greenock.
  It is important to create new jobs. I look forward to the day when the Inverclyde initiative or the Minister from the Dispatch Box announces massive inward investment to Inverclyde in the shape of a factory with several hundred permanent jobs. As important as the creation of new jobs, however, is the retention of the jobs already in the constituency in places like Scott Lithgow and Fergusons at the Newark yard and Clark Kincades. It is absolutely essential that orders be found for those three establishments. Ministers may boast about new jobs coming to Inverclyde by way of the initiative—albeit slowly—but at the same time they regret the redundancies among existing employers.
  I have said that I am deeply concerned about the worsening circumstances at Scott Lithgow. At the moment the yard does not have an order to replace the Britoil rig Ocean Alliance. The yard desperately needs an order or two. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office will give the yard all the help that it needs to pull in orders from the offshore sector, perhaps including Ministry of Defence orders. For example, the contract for the floating jetty for the Clyde submarine base will be going out to tender in the
  516
  very near future. I know that that contract has nothing to do with the Scottish Office as it is an MOD order. However, it is a massive order, perhaps in the region of £20 million, whether it is a concrete or a steel structure. Whether it is concrete or steel, the best place for it to be built is on the other side of the Clyde. I know that the order relates to the Trident programme. However, I am desperate to find work for my constituents and the Government are, unfortunately, here for another four years. I am a realist in these matters. I know that the Conservatives are in terminal decline in Scotland and I hope that that disease is contagious and we get rid of some of these English filibusterers.
  Scott Lithgow is the place for the floating jetty contract, especially if it is to be constructed of steel.
  Mr. Bill Walker indicated assent.
  Dr. Godman: I am glad that at least one Conservative Member has some sympathy for what I have to say, even if this point is ignored by his English colleagues.
  Mr. Walker: I shall go further and join the hon. Gentleman in any deputation he cares to organise. Provided that the floating jetty can be built at competitive prices, the lower Clyde is the obvious place to build it.
  Dr. Godman: That is a qualified offer of help which I accept—with some qualifications. I am not as cynical as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and I would go with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—provided that he kept quiet.
  The hard-working and honourable officials of the Inverclyde initiative have been set an almost impossible task by a careless and indifferent administration in the Scottish Office. Everyone on the lower Clyde knows—including Inverclyde initiative officials — that the allocated budget is inadequate. The idea that the enterprise should be privately led has failed. It has become a traditional public activity, with the two mainstays, apart from the SDA, being the two local councils—Inverclyde and Strathclyde. That is a disgrace because the opportunities are there, particularly now that the SDA has acquired certain sites in Port Glasgow. Much more must be done. The Locate in Scotland bureau must attract new business to Inverclyde.
  The people of Greenock and Port Glasgow, and elsewhere in Inverclyde, desperately need the Government's help. However, in the years that I have represented an Inverclyde constituency the Government have failed the people whom I represent, the people who were represented so ably by Mrs. Anna McCurley and who will be represented with equal ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
  Greenock and Port Glasgow is experiencing one of its blackest hours since the war. The Government are a minority in Scotland, but they must show some magnanimity, humility, sympathy and compassion for the people of the lower Clyde.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry for the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on two counts. I am sorry that his constituents have suffered so many redundancies, but he is not alone in that. Most hon. Members have experienced

  517
  redundancies in their constituencies. My constituency recently suffered 300 redundancies at a major motor component company. I shall try to illustrate how we view such matters in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  I am also sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he thinks that any hon. Member who does not represent a Scottish constituency is an English filibusterer. As members of the United Kingdom Parliament we are fully entitled to participate in debates which concern the raising of revenue from our constituents to finance projects, in whatever part of the kingdom.
  Hon. Members are lucky to have had two bites at the cherry. We do not have debates about the west midlands in Government time and we speak for a population almost the size of that of Scotland.
  The Bill seeks to raise the SDA's financial limit from £700 million to £1,200 million—a substantial sum. I do not wish to be anything other than constructive because I realise that sensitivities are great. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is not in his place as he paid a kind tribute to his constituents, my relatives. His remarks will have been heard better than he appreciated.
  This debate is similar to that which we enjoyed on the coal industry, when the Government sought to increase borrowing limits, financial assistance and so on. The Opposition have been hard pressed to decide whether to attack the Government for lack of support or to support the Government. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) intends to vote. I see that he does not, so all his hon. Friends' disparaging remarks about the Government's performance are not sufficient to make Opposition Members vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Maxton: Of course none of my hon. Friends will vote against raising the borrowing powers of the Scottish Development Agency which, after all, was established by a Labour Government and is supported by the Labour party in Scotland. What we object to is that it could be used so much more in Scotland as an interventionist, economic agency than this Government allow.
  Mr. Howarth: I hope that that will be noted. It is at least support for what the Government are trying to do in raising the limit and increasing funds.
  A substantial point of principle divides the two sides of the House. There is a strong belief that Government intervention is the only way. The history of the modern Labour party shows that it sought consistently to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money in the hope of reaping benefits. That did not succeed, but prudent spending by the Conservative Government means that we do not have to face the problems currently experienced by the United States which, no doubt, will be the subject of further exchanges in the House tonight.
  This nation of ours—not just Scotland but parts of the English regions — is littered with evidence of Governments' failure to take good investment deisions and direct other people's money into sensible places. I mention some examples: The refusal by the Labour Government to give industrial development certificates attracted industries away from areas where they could enjoy the security of labour supply, skill and funds. Speke and Skelmersdale are in the litany of their disastrous policies.
  518
  I urge the Opposition not to ignore the facts. The facts are that where there has been major Government intervention problems have occurred, but the invisible hand of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends has worked and contributed to results.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member asks us not to ignore the facts. Does he concede that the refusal of the Labour Government to give industrial development certificates encouraged companies such as Veeder Root, which originally wanted to locate in the south of England, to go to Dundee? It has been there now for 40 successful years and has added to the prosperity of the area. All this is a result of a Labour Government's policy. I have that on the authority of the manager of the company.
  Mr. Howarth: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can produce a success story. But I understand that that company came from outside the United Kingdom; it was not an indigenous company, so that was inward investment, which is a different story.
  The Government have clearly demonstrated that they have the right view of the SDA. In his speech last week my hon. Friend the Minister outlined the role of the SDA as
  "furthering the economic development of Scotland, improving international competitiveness and improving its environment. These it accomplishes through a variety of functions, including the provision of finance, premises, advice and counselling, sectoral advice, redevelopment of land and property and bringing derelict land back into use." —[Official Report, 21 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 841.]
  That is something about which no one could conceivably disagree, but what is significant about the Government's contribution is that the SDA has been used not as an engine of intervention but as a catalyst to attract private sector funding, and that has marked the successful administration of my hon. Friend.
  The SDA is now attracting more money than ever before and with regard to industrial investment every £1 of public money attracts £13·50 of private sector investment, compared with £5 only two years ago That marks a substantial difference in opinion and philosophy between Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Minister — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cathcart wants to challenge me on that fact I will give way. He should tell us whether he sees the SDA as being an engine of Socialism or an engine with which free enterprise can be powered.
  Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, under the present Government, the SDA has been able to fulfil its statutory purpose No. 2?
  Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman would care to remind me of statutory purpose No. 2 I would be delighted to give my view.
  Mr. Salmond: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten statutory purpose No. 2 for the moment. For his benefit I shall read it. The functions shall be aimed at
  "carrying on, or establishing and carrying on, whether by themselves or jointly with any other person, industrial undertakings."
  Mr. Howarth: I would not rate that purpose as a high priority; some of the other objectives of the SDA are rather more important.
  Apart from emphasising the catalyst role of the SDA it is important to note that it has achieved a degree of success in the creation of jobs. As an English Member I

  519
  am delighted to see that public money is producing such a result. The review of the agency estimated that over the period 1981 to 1985 net additional output in the Scottish economy from the agency's investment function was about £275 million, with the creation of some 10,400 jobs. Obviously, any reduction in unemployment is welcome.
  It is apparent from Scottish debates that Scotland is constantly bemoaning the fact that it is worse off than the rest of the kingdom. If hon. Members will bear with me, not in a spirit of hostility but I hope in one of enlightenment, I shall consider whether that statement is true. There is no question but that Scotland is favoured in comparison with other regions of the United Kingdom, particularly the west midlands. I remind Opposition Members that no area of the United Kingdom has seen such a change in its fortunes as the west midlands over the past 10 years, when it went from the top of the earnings league to the bottom. The good news is that it is coming back, which is why I, as a Conservative, am in this House and will remain here. It is a testimony to the success of the less interventionist policy of the Government.
  Opposition Members' constituencies are in direct competition with my region for jobs. The extent to which companies are benefiting from SDA funding is of great interest to my constituents, particularly my industrial constituents. I shall consider three points and see how Scotland compares. My first point concerns regional aid. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that there had been a diminution in regional aid. According to statistics that have recently been made available to the House, expenditure, at current prices, has increased since 1977–78 from £134·8 million to £241·6 million. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm whether that is so. That is the largest level of aid for any part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and it compares with a meagre £9·8 million for the west midlands, which has suffered substantial unemployment.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I press on. In comparison with my own region, Scotland is doing better with regard to average earnings. It is true that, in comparison with the south-east of England average earnings in Scotland are very much lower, but average earnings in the west midlands are lower than those in Scotland. I shall give Opposition Members the figures. In April 1986—the latest available figures—the average earnings of a man working full-time in Scotland was £201·3p; in the west midlands the figure was just under £194. Apart from London and the south-east, the average full-time earnings of men in Scotland are higher than any region of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bill Walker: It is also a good place to live.
  Mr. Howarth: With regard to the share of public expenditure, apart from Northern Ireland, Scotland scores the highest. In Scotland the identifiable public expenditure per head of population in 1986–87 was £2,518·50 in comparison with £1,967·5 for England. Scotland is receiving these amounts of money, yet all we hear from Opposition Members is griping. They say, "We want more money, we are making a mess of it, we want yet more money."
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that it was only with regard to unemployment that Scotland was scoring, yet all the major indicators show that Scotland is doing better.
  I hope that Opposition Members will not say that I should come and see things for myself, because I have been to Scotland. I visit my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) from time to time. I hope that we can devise some means of educating Opposition Members. We are not getting through at the moment, but the message will get through eventually. Scotland is a great nation; we know that Opposition Members are capable of more and we will help them to achieve it.
  When I visit Scotland I am always struck by the fact that there is much development taking place and that all is not as grim as it is painted. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) said that he has four hospitals in his constituency. I am still fighting for one in mine. Therefore, it is not true that Scotland is completely alone in a sea of deprivation. Scotland has many natural advantages, not the least of which is its countryside, which attracts tourists from all over the world. The Scotch whisky industry, so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and others, is a worldwide and popular industry. The people of Scotland are, by and large, friendly. Clearly, there are some exceptions, but they are getting better. Scotland enjoys an identity that is not enjoyed by England. The same is true of Wales. There is not a national English identity in the same way as there is a Scottish identity. I do not have an English tie to wear but I have my Douglas tie and when I wear that I know that I am wearing my Scottish tie and I am conscious of my Scottish ancestry.
  Mr. Maxton: Patronising.
  Mr. Howarth: It is not patronising. The hon. Gentleman, throughout his parliamentary career, has been trying to promote the essential Scottishness of Scotland but when I wish to allude to it he is agin it.
  Scotland has a tremendous amount going for it. I am alive to the concerns of Scotland but Scottish Labour Members persist in running down their own cities and towns. If I were an investor I would be turned off the idea of investing in Scotland after hearing the comments of Labour Members. In the west midlands the people have suffered greatly but they have rolled up their sleeves and got on with it. Unemployment is now falling fast and business is booming because those people got on with it. Labour Members will find that their hon. Friends who represent seats in the west midlands will attack the Government but they do not spend all their time running down their towns and cities.
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will no doubt have noticed the marked contrast that exists between the positive approach of the SDA in going out into the world and attracting new business to Scotland, under the aegis of the Scottish Office, and the carping and undermining of Scotland that we hear so often from Labour Members.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Essentially hon. Members are undermining the work of the

  521
  agency they are so keen to support. They are also undermining the work of Locate in Scotland. I welcome my hon. Friend's point.
  I urge Labour Members to recognise that they can do more by writing up their own area than running it down. The statistics that show that Scotland is not as badly off as they maintain and that it enjoys favoured conditions in comparison with other parts of the country. I urge them not to ask for an enterprise zone because businesses outside the enterprise zone may well be put out of business. The way in which the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have used the SDA as an instrument of furthering free enterprise to promote the greater economic development of Scotland is a first-class tribute to their work and to the work of the Government as a whole.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall give some facts about the level of assistance going to Scotland. Industrial support under the Scottish programmes, through regional development grants, the regional selective agency and the budgets of the SDA and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, will have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1989–90. As a share of the Scottish Office budget it will have fallen from 3·7 per cent. to 3 per cent. in that time. Therefore, it is not a picture of more and more money being devoted to Scotland.
  We can take that a little further and put the sums in context. The budget of the London Docklands development corporation will be increased by £25 million in 1987–88. If one adds to that the £127 million spent on the rail link to the city of London, about £500 million on road improvements in and around the Isle of Dogs and a 100 per cent. tax allowance on all buildings constructed by 1992, it contrasts strongly with the total Scottish aid budget of £120 million.
  I am speaking as a fan of the SDA. I have always supported it and have a great admiration for it as an essential component in the restimulation of the Scottish economy. I must pay tribute to the role of the SDA in my constituency, especially Clydebank. Without the SDA I dread to think what would have happened after the closure of the Singer factory in that area.
  It is strange that there is often a reference to Clydebank being an enterprise zone, but that is of much less importance than the fact that it is an SDA task force area. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who spoke about enterprise zones. The enterprise zones that have been backed up by the SDA have had some success. If it had been left to private industry, one would have found rotting areas all around Clydebank, and I am sure that the same would have applied to Dundee. The private sector would not have rescued the area.
  The enterprise zones now are a far cry from what was suggested by the present Foreign Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The idea originally was an enterprise zone that would simply let the market rip. We now have the reverse of that. We have enterprise zones backed up by state intervention offering tax incentives and rate-free periods. That is essentially what the Labour party would urge ought to be done in areas having particular problems.
  522
  In the enterprise zone area in Clydebank, in my hon. Friend's constituency of Dundee, East and in the Glasgow eastern area renewal—all areas with which the SDA has been involved—there is superb co-operation between the SDA, regional councils and the district councils. That is extremely important. I hope that we have none of the nonsense spreading up from England where there is replacement of local authorities by Government quangos. We have proved that the operations we have in Scotland can work perfectly well.
  Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend concede that it is not just a matter of co-operation between the SDA and the regional and district councils? In the Dundee project there was the further co-operation of the private sector and the trade union movement. In the Dundee project the trade unions are represented and they make a vital contribution to the prosperity of Dundee through that project.
  Mr. Worthington: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for adding to my point.
  I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) back in his place as I now pay tribute to one of the smaller involvements of the SDA—its support of community businesses. I hope that this peculiarly Scottish initiative will receive strong support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Last week the Scottish community business convention, held in Glasgow, revealed that there are now over 100 community enterprises with £10 million turnover and that 3,000 jobs and training opportunities are now available because local people have got together to try to create jobs in their areas.
  It is important to note that, particularly in my part of Scotland, the areas that are being assisted most by community businesses are the most deprived and threatened areas, which no one else is helping in any way. It is striking that if there is any upward turn in the economy, there is little downward turn in unemployment in areas with 40 and 50 per cent. unemployment. The SDA put only £40,000 a year into the Strathclyde community business, which I was privileged to chair for four years. It is important to have support for this major Scottish economic initiative taken by local people. I am thinking especially of the work spaces idea, security firms in areas such as Borrowfield and Possil in Glasgow as well as of environmental work.
  We must face the fact that none of the initiatives taken by central or local government, which are topped-down initiatives, succeeds in reaching those most in need of employment. One must get in among the people and work for a period of years before those initiatives really take off. I am sure that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will confirm that fact in relation to the co-operatives operating in his constituency. I have listened to Conservative Members who have now discovered community businesses and enterprises not just in the economy, but in housing. It worries me that they seem to think that one can simply turn on a co-operative or community enterprise and it will succeed. It will not. Unless we can learn to work with community enterprises over a period of years, there will be some disasters.
  I turn with regret to the involvement of the SDA and the Scottish Office in an initiative in my area. I refer to a project that has attracted much attention in Scotland—the proposal by Health Care International to site an international hospital in Clydebank. It is a vast project

  523
  worth £120 million and promising 4,000 jobs. To give the House some idea of the scale of the project, I point out that about 6,600 patients would go through it each year. The project has been seven years in the development and was greeted with glee and enthusiasm by the outgoing chief executive of the SDA, Mr. George Mathewson, as easily the biggest project with which he had been involved.
  Why should one have doubts about the way in which the project has been dealt with? First, it has become a regular feature of Scottish Office initiatives in recent times that, even with projects that take seven years to develop, the public and health agencies and others are given six weeks in which to respond. I hope that we will return to a realistic time scale for public consultation.
  My second reason for questioning the involvement of the SDA is the proposal to site the project on what is known locally as the asbestos site. When the old Turners asbestos firm left the area, it left vast amounts of asbestos with which the local authority had to deal. The asbestos area is now about 1,000 yd long, 40 yd wide and 7 yd deep. Not counting asbestos left in maturing tanks built under the factory, there are 280,000 cu yd of waste. Seven years ago the district council buried the waste at a cost to itself of £380,000. It dealt with the health hazard to the people of Clydebank. Now the SDA, at a rumoured cost of £2·5 million, is to dig up the asbestos and move it a little way down the road to deep-bury it in a basin.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Perhaps it would help the House if the hon. Gentleman would clarify precisely where he stands on this project. Does he want Health Care International to come to his constituency to build its hospital?
  Mr. Worthington: I have made my feelings on the matter perfectly clear on previous occasions, and I shall do so again. However, I should like to follow the thread of my argument before I do so.
  The SDA wishes to spend £2·5 million on digging up asbestos and moving it a few hundred yards to another part of the site. On being questioned about the site, the present chief executive of the SDA said that it was the only suitable place in the enterprise zone with access to the airport, to communications. I find that deeply ironic. Enterprise zones are supposed to provide freedom from bureaucratic rules. However, we are now to see the insertion into the enterprise zone of this massive proposal when just down the road around Old Kilpatrick there is a vast site which could accommodate the hospital. Because of a line drawn on the map by the Scottish Office, £2·5 million is to be spent. One must ask whether that is a sensible use of public money, given that £385,000 was spent on burying the asbestos on another occasion. Have not the Scottish Office and the SDA become too close to the project and the developers? I query the connection with the World Health Organisation. In the early stages of the project I hesitated about making my feelings clear because the World Health Organisation was referred to.
  Health Care International, with the support of the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, made the following statement:
  "The applicant has worked closely over the past six years with the WHO. The WHO views the project as being particularly beneficial to developing nations which can save precious health care funds by sending their patients to the
  524
  proposed hospital rather than building such facilities themselves. In those cases, developing nations cannot economically justify or appropriately staff and maintain their own tertiary care hospitals. The proposed hospital would enable developing nations to access excellent tertiary care at reasonable cost without the capital outlay."
  I was hesitant about responding to a project that seemed to have goals very much in line with my aspirations—that one should use the resources of the medical infrastructure of the west of Scotland to help poorer people in poorer countries. I asked whether the project was along those lines. I wrote to the deputy director general of the World Health Organisation, and received the following reply:
  "The truth of the matter is that the World Health Organisation is not backing Health Care International in any way. I know of their plans and they have always kept in touch with us, and the only reason which has kept my interest alive is their commitment (at least they say they are committed) to using their facilities for the training of Third-world medical and health scientists to work with them and gain experience. We have permitted them to attend the World Health Assembly meeting essentially for their 're-education' and to see that emphasis is indispensably laid on primary health care, the only strategy to reduce the present inequitable distribution of health service and social injustice in health. This project is certainly not suitable for the Third world because of the heavy cost and the fact that it would only provide care facilities for a small percentage of any population, and certainly not the poor."
  The project was vetted by the SDA but, as I found by simply taking the initiative to write to Geneva, the WHO disavowed any commitment to it. I feel that some people have been misled.
  The primary role of the Secretary of State is to act as the guardian of the Health Service and to judge whether, under the terms of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the development would to a significant extent interfere with the performance by him of any duty imposed by that Act or to a significant extent operate to the disadvantage of persons seeking or afforded admission or access to any accommodation. The Secretary of State has not kept that duty paramount. I believe that our representations to him were a waste of time. This project involved an in-house application to the Secretary of State. He was virtually applying to himself for permission. It is unbelievable that the present Secretary of State and his predecessor did not know about this project for several years.
  Dr. Mathewson said that this was easily the biggest project with which he had been concerned, in terms of inward investment. It is inconceivable that this project was not brought up and discussed at the regular meetings between Dr. Mathewson and Locate in Scotland and the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State was not aware of the project, it shows incompetence either by him or by Locate in Scotland and the SDA in not letting him know what was happening. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was informed about the project, what was his response? Did he encourage it? What did he say? I challenge him to say when he first knew about the project. I am convinced that the likelihood of the right hon. and learned Gentleman turning down the project was as great as the likelihood of the Prime Minister acquiring a sense of humour.
  Mr. Bill Walker: How would the hon. Gentleman feel if the people who are coming to his constituency or those

  525
  who are listening to him thought that they might be better off going to Perthshire? We have plenty of space and would be delighted to have them.
  Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My feelings will become clear later.
  How did the Secretary of State deal with the project? There was united professional and political concern about the initiative, which was centred on the 600 nurses required to staff the project. There was concern because, in the west of Scotland as elsewhere, there was a falling birth rate. Many of us wished that the UK 2000 proposals for nursing care would be brought into operation. There is also a poor skill mix within the Greater Glasgow health board. Too many of the nursing staff within the board, compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are not within the upper range of nursing skills.
  The Coopers and Lybrand independent report was then produced, and it is now being used to support the project. Because of its shallowness, the report is disgraceful. It was conducted within about three weeks. In no way is it an independent report. Those who conducted the report gave back to their sponsors what they thought the sponsors wanted to hear. The report has been quoted as evidence that the National Health Service would not be damaged. Paragraph 104 states:
  "We would stress that we have not validated any of the main assumptions on demand levels or pricing policy or the estimates of construction, equipping and operating costs of the step-down facility."
  It is difficult to think of what is left.
  All sorts of false assumptions are made about the need for nurses. For example, to establish the hospital, 60 of the nurses are to be brought from the United States of America. There is no reference to the fact that they will have to go back. There is also the possibility of attracting some of the 2,000 nurses who move to the United Kingdom and who have fullly acceptable professional qualifications. Fifty nurses constitute only 2·5 per cent. of one year's inflow, but they would have gone to the National Health Service if it had not been for the existence of the private hospital. There is then a vague reference to the fact that about 100 could be attracted to work at HCI from the pool of nurses not working. It is thought that 120 to 130 nurses who presently are not employed could be attracted there. Why are they not employed at present? It is because inadequate resources are made available for the Greater Glasgow health board. There is the admitted problem that perhaps 60 nurses would be of the higher skill category.
  The Secretary of State did not respond with the required rigour and duty to guardianship of the National Health Service. He was much involved in support of the project. He sees health care following electronics as the next job growth sector within the Scottish economy. I am certainly not against jobs for Clydebank. I am fully aware of the value of such jobs. I regard health care as a sensible sphere into which to move. The sponsors of the project, either prompted by the Secretary of State or on their own initiative, have done a great deal to lessen some of the damage to the Health Service in terms of paying wages, Whitley council rates, and so on. I am appalled at the way in which the Secretary of State has dealt with the application, because I believe that applications such as this could be dealt with in a way that is not damaging to the National Health Service. As the local Member of Parliament, why am I put in the position where I have to
  526
  choose between either jobs or the National Health Service? If there was suitable investment in the National Health Service, possibly this would not be a damaging project.
  Mr. John MacKay, a former Member of the House and former Scottish Minister with responsibilities for health, now the chief executive of the Scottish Conservative party, said:
  "Let's get more youngsters into training for nursing and all the other skills and professions which will be needed so that we will have enough for this project and the NHS."
  The message behind that is that this is a damaging project to the NHS. Mr. John MacKay said that if he was the Scottish Minister with responsibilities for Health, he would augment the training and supply of nurses in that sector. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not take a similar attitude.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman promised that he would clarify his position before he sat down. Will he now indicate whether, if he had been in my position, he would have turned down the application that was made knowing that, among other things, that would have led to the loss of 4,000 jobs in his constituency? Will he give us a straightforward answer?
  Mr. Worthington: I thought that I had given a quite clear answer on that. It would be possible, if I had taken the unanimous feelings of the Greater Glasgow health board, the local health councils and the trade unions seriously, to put extra investment into the NHS to make the project one that did not damage the NHS. The Secretary of State ignored his obligation to defend the National Health Service. My response would have been very different.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Throughout the course of the debate, we have heard Back-Bench Conservative Members say that those of us in Scotland ought to be grateful that expenditure per head in Scotland is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom. It really does not matter in which part of the United Kingdom the expenditure is raised. It does not matter whether money raised in Scotland is spent in England, provided that it is spent properly, or whether money raised from operations offshore of Scotland is spent in England or other parts of the United Kingdom, provided that it is spent properly. The argument that somehow the expenditure per head in Scotland is more than it is in England does not impress anybody at all and creates a conflict where none exists. The United Kingdom will either survive in its entirety or sink in its entirety. One cannot divorce one part of the United Kingdom from other parts.
  The arguments that we have heard deployed by those Conservative Members, who have given what I must say is grudging support to the Scottish Development Agency, make no sense at all. It has been interesting to hear from hon. Members on the Back Benches. many of whom I understand attended St. Andrews university. Why on earth that university should have turned out so many people who have a narrow economic view of life I do not know, but we have heard from many of them that they do not support the Scottish Development Agency, despite the fact that they are loyal Government supporters and support everything that is said from the Front Bench, except perhaps the remark made by the

  527
  junior Minister when he opened the debate about a week ago when he praised the SDA and endorsed the philosophy that public expenditure creates jobs. That philosophy is wholeheartedly endorsed by Opposition Members. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell us whether the sentiments that he expressed are to prevail in the next four years or whether the attitude of those Back Benchers who wish the role of the SDA to be diminished or even privatised is dominant in the Government.
  I do not deny that parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in desperate need of public expenditure but it is certainly not our aim to run down Scotland, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) who is unfortunately no longer present. We argue that Scotland has structural problems which require public expenditure to put them right. That is why we welcome the work of the SDA, even with the limited role that it performs in some parts of the country, in starting to create jobs and a climate in which Scottish industry can be rebuilt. It is not a matter of Scotland against England, or of suggesting that Scotland is incapable of generating its own wealth. We are perfectly capable of creating our own wealth, given the right economic conditions.
  More often than not, private initiative and private enterprise need public expenditure to get them going. In the debate surrounding the Chancellor's statement in an hour's time it is argued that large sums of public money have been spent to prime the pump to allow the Government to sell off BP. Conservative Members certainly believe in public expenditure when it assists private enterprise. The public subsidy poured into industries to be privatised has been phenomenal compared with the amounts made available to regenerate those parts of the economy and the United Kingdom which have not experienced the growth that has taken place in the southeast corner.
  I wish to make two points about the SDA. I agree with just one comment made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)—that some elements of the agency's expenditure were misplaced and should have been subjected to greater scrutiny. I believe that the SDA has put money into some projects when it should not have done so. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has described the problems in his constituency and the amount of money that the SDA is putting into the private hospital there. Opening the debate last week, the Minister said that the SDA was responsible for creating an image of Scotland. I pointed out that that image should not be one of making profits out of private medicine but of providing medicine on the basis of need.
  I bitterly resent the fact that £20 million of public money is being poured into the coffers of Health Care International to enable it to make a profit from private health care when Edinburgh royal infirmary in my constituency is in desperate need of funds. More than £8 million is required to bring the infirmary up to 1987 standards. One operating theatre cannot be used because it is no longer hygienic and two others will have to close unless money is spent on them. The accident and emergency department will not be able to cope with the
  528
  work load expected in the next two or three years and a whole series of wings need massive expenditure to make the heating safe and to remove various health hazards.
  Lest anyone misunderstand me, I should make it clear that the infirmary is one of the best providers of health care in Scotland and one of the most renowned teaching hospitals in the world. It is a tragedy that, when the Government are providing £20 million to encourage medicine for profit, they are not prepared to spend money on bringing the Edinburgh royal infirmary up to date, let alone to bring it into the 21st century. The junior Minister responsible for these matters, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), during a brief visit to the infirmary said that the health board would have to find the resources from its present allocation, but that is simply not possible unless Lothian health board stops development of all other hospitals and all other major programmes. He will have to face the fact that, within the next few months, the Government will have to commit substantial sums to replace that hospital if it is not to to be the scene of major trouble and disquiet.
  Great play was made a few moments ago by the Government Front Bench about whether jobs were to be provided in Clydebank because of the Health Care International hospital. Lothian health board is being told to save £7 million this financial year, and because of that, all hospitals in Lothian are short-staffed. The royal Edinburgh psychiatric hospital is now involved in a major dispute because of staff shortages. If the Government are serious about creating jobs, jobs are waiting to be created in the Health Service. If they were serious about providing health care jobs they would start putting money back into the Health Service. That would create jobs in the caring services and in building, when it comes to replacing hospitals. At the same time, it would provide a valuable service.
  I have one other criticism of the SDA. It concerns something that is not entirely the fault of the SDA, but is certainly that of the Government's current philosophy. Scotland's problems will not be solved by the Scottish Development Agency lending money to firms on a small scale, no matter how helpful or laudable that is. As in many other parts of the United Kingdom, most of the financial centre of Scotland is located in its south-east corner. There is a ridiculous situation in this part of the world, in which house prices and rents are extortionate. It is difficult for people to move down here to fill the jobs that are being created. I cheerfully admit and am glad to hear that they are being created here; at the same time, there is a rundown in the economy in the northern half of Britain and in Scotland.
  The tragedy of Guinness breaking the promise it made at the time of the takeover bid for Distillers—to come to Edinburgh—was not only that job opportunities were lost by not moving Guinness's head office to Edinburgh, but that if there had been a major United Kingdom industrial company operating throughout the world and based in Edinburgh it might have attracted other companies there too and broken up the cosy insularity that prevails in this part of the world among industrialists. Some companies, to their credit, have decided to stay in Scotland and operate on an international and national basis from there, but Guinness broke the stock exchange motto—"My word is my bond"—and decided to stay here. That is the tragedy of the Guinness affair.

  529
  Until Scotland attracts firms of the magnitude of Guinness it will always be the first to feel the effects of any recession and the last to feel the benefits of an expansion in the economy. The Government could put that matter right if they were prepared to address themselves to the fact that the market mechanism will not ensure that jobs come to Scotland on a long-term basis. Instead, there will be satellite developments, and we shall not be able to play our part in generating the wealth that would benefit the people of Scotland and of the whole United Kingdom. We need an end to the lopsided development in this country; it is something the Government must put right.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: This has been a long debate, lasting more than a week, and there have been many contributions to it. The number of contributions from the Opposition Benches shows by how much the Labour party is the majority party in Scotland. The Government, by contrast, could muster only three Back Bench speeches in all the hours of the debate.
  I pay tribute to the three maiden speeches made by my hon. Friends. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvey) has forgotten his, which he made last week, because the weekend and the entire week have intervened. His was an excellent speech, in which he paid a warm, well-deserved tribute to our good friends Gregor and Joan Mackenzie. My hon. Friend also referred to his constituency, part of which I used to represent. We still share the large housing scheme of Castlemilk and sit on many committees together. Great work is done by the local council, Strathclyde regional council and, to a lesser extent, the SDA, but little is done by private enterprise in such an area. We are totally reliant on public expenditure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made an excellent and powerful maiden speech and paid a warm and generous tribute to his predecessor. Perhaps not all of us would have paid such a warm tribute to Mrs. McCurley. My hon. Friend referred to the enormous problems of his constituency, particularly in Linwood, where he lives. He mentioned that the Government have created enormous problems of unemployment there and have done little to solve them.
  I am delighted to see both my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) in the House because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, who took over the seat from a sitting Labour Member, they both won seats from sitting Tory Members. The speeches by my hon. Friends were extremely good, but even if they did not make a speech at all, we would still welcome them because they got rid of Tory Members of Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South also paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Gerry Malone, and the work that he did in the House of Commons. My hon. Friend showed his expertise in the oil industry. I know that all three of my hon. Friends will play a great part in our debates over the next few months and years.
  I should like to refer in passing to what happened late last Wednesday evening and Thursday morning. It is important for us to try to put some of the record straight. I should like to start with the part played by the two trivial parties, the irrelevancies in Scottish politics, the Scottish
  530
  National party and the alliance. There are three minority parties in Scotland, starting with the Tory party with 10 seats, the alliance with nine and the SNP with a mere three. The alliance and the SNP seemed unwilling to say exactly where they stood. During the debate on the motion to adjourn the debate, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said:
  "We are willing and able to stay here for as long as is necessary to complete the Second Reading of the Bill."
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said:
  "I oppose the Government's motion because it sets a worrying precedent to start interrupting and adjourning Second Reading debates. Opposition parties have precious little weaponry available to them in their armoury in any case." —[Official Report, 21 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 875–879.]
  And then what do I read in the Glasgow Herald on Friday morning but the fact that
  "Mrs. Ewing who christened the Labour MPs the 'feeble 50,' said that early-morning manoeuvres and Westminster parlour games had cost MPs the opportunity for a vital debate on all aspects of Scottish economic and industrial life."
  That is slightly different from what the hon. Lady said the evening before, that she would fight the Bill to the bitter end. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, making the same point, said:
  "The Labour Party substantially overplayed its hand and did not exercise proper judgment. If it is really intent on taking every issue to the parliamentary brink, we will all suffer. Mr. Dewar was unable to control his young, raw, rooky recruits."
  Mr. Norman Buchan: My hon. Friend is referring to me.
  Mr. Maxton: I would like to refer to my hon. Friend as one of the young, raw rookies, but, although he is still young at heart, he is neither raw nor a rookie.
  What became apparent during that debate was that the two minority parties—the third and fourth parties in Scottish politics—are now more concerned with attacking and fighting the Labour party than they are with fighting the Government who cause the problems. It would make a good deal of sense if, during debates on Scottish affairs, they sat on the Benches opposite. We should then have the majority party on this side of the House, with the three minority parties facing us.
  What is the role of the Government in all this? Of course, there was a lot of briefing from the Scottish press office. It was unofficial, but we now know that it was being done by a man who, at least, will now be paid honestly by the Tory party for the job that he has been doing for the past five or six years. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) says that that may be described as a Government cut, but at least there is a certain honesty about the Conservative party paying Mr. Alec Pagett's wages, rather than the taxpayer doing so. After all, he will be doing exactly the same job as he was doing before.
  The debate that was supposed to take place tonight was always a Government debate. It was in Government time, and the Government wanted it—although, of course, the Labour party was delighted, and we would have played our full part in it. We could have had the debate on Thursday morning, later than it eventually finished, if the Government had been prepared to keep it going. If the Whip had moved the closure at, say, 3 o'clock—four hours into the debate—your Deputy, Mr. Speaker, would probably have looked on it very sympathetically.

  531
  We would have voted against it, but at least the Government would then have used their troops. Instead, we continued until 3.30 am debating an Adjournment motion simply to satisfy the pigheaded stubbornness of the Government Whips, because they believed for some reason that there was a deal.
  It was obvious when the friends of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the graduates of St. Andrews university, moved in to "support" him—he must at times have wished that he did not have their support—that the Conservative party is schizophrenic about the Scottish Development Agency. Here we have an economic interventionist agency, designed to bring jobs into being in the Scottish economy, and to use public money to create wealth in Scotland. Although they voted against the original concept, the Conservatives now welcome it and want to use it. Nevertheless, it runs against everything that they believe in.
  Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millian) said about Glasgow. Here is a perfect example of what happens there. I found it extremely insulting, as did the lord provost and council of Glasgow, that the Prime Minister, representing the whole country, should make an official visit to the city of Glasgow, be 300 yards from the city chambers and not even bother to tell the lord provost—his is not a political appointment; he is the official head of Glasgow—that she was doing so. She then makes great claims about how all the work being done in Glasgow, all the enormous achievements there, are down to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to private enterprise. However, the Opposition know that Glasgow has become the shining light of inner-city regeneration and that that is due to the work of Labour-controlled district councils, Labour-controlled regional councils and the state intervention of the Scottish Development Agency.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend will no doubt welcome reinforcement of that point. Edinburgh district council and the Lothian regional council, both of which are Labour-controlled, have an excellent record. In 1986, when they were under Conservative control, the electorate gave its verdict by turning them from Conservative into Labour-controlled councils. Moreover, the recent five by-elections in Edinburgh turned marginal seats into very safe seats for Labour.
  Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is quite right. Throughout Scotland Labour now controls the authorities. In conjunction with the SDA and the district and regional councils, Labour is creating jobs and wealth for Scotland.
  Having praised the socialist weapon of intervention that the SDA ought to be, the Minister has a responsibility to answer some of the questions that were put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). The Minister deliberately misled the House about the amount of money that is available to the SDA. There is a contradiction between what the Minister said in his speech and what has been said by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. He also has a responsibility to set out the Government's position on regional aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden
  532
  quoted from an interview on "Good Morning Scotland" by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Referring to the threats and rumours of cuts in regional aid he said:
  "there might be concern if it was true but it is not true. I am able to repeat to you categorically what I believe Ian Lang has also said: that there is no question of these resources available for regional aid in Scotland being reduced."
  Every Opposition Member wants the Minister to repeat that categorical assurance. The rumour of cuts has been repeated yet again in today's edition of The Guardian. I am not saying that it is true, but there is a very strong rumour that Lord Young and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are intent on carrying out yet another review of regional aid. We need to know whether that means more cuts for Scotland. I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
  The Minister also has a duty to say whether there has been a change of policy in terms of who is in charge of regional aid in Scotland. The Secretary of State said that it would not be for the Department of Trade and Industry to make that decision—that the DTI may be responsible for regional aid in England, and that that is reasonable and proper, but that he and his colleagues are responsible for regional aid in Scotland. He went on to say that he believed that a reduction in the level of regional support was not being considered. That is not correct. I accept that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of regional aid, but he is not responsible for deciding what sums of money will be made available for regional aid. [Interruption.] That is very interesting. I am sure that the Department of Trade and Industry will be very keen to know that. That is not what it believes to be the case.
  Mr. McLeish: While my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was speaking, the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that he was incharge of distributing the money that is spent in Scotland. If that is the case, does my hon. Friend accept that the figure of £343 million that was spent in 1982–83 has been reduced to £66 million and that the Secretary of State is therefore responsible for that significant cut—not the Department of Trade and Industry in London?
  Mr. Maxton: That is right. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to take the blame for the cuts that he made in regional aid instead of passing the buck to the Department of Trade and Industry, as he usually does.
  Whether or not we like it, and whatever smooth words we may hear from the Minister about the SDA, we are now in the third term of a Tory Government who were not elected in Scotland. The Government are becoming increasingly Right-wing and are increasingly taking the monetarist line which we heard from the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). Indeed, the Secretary of State is going increasingly down the Right-wing route. Although he did not speak from the rostrum at the Conservative party conference at Blackpool, I believe that he spoke at a meeting of the latest Right-wing pressure group called the Committee for Free Britain. It is probably the most extreme Right-wing organisation that is allowed within the bounds of the Conservative party without going down into neo-Fascist roots. The Secretary of State, who used to be considered a liberal in the Tory party, is now speaking at such rallies.
  Yesterday, when he opened the London office of the Northern Development Company, Lord Young criticised

  533
  the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. Clearly, he does not believe in the concept of aid to regions. He does not believe in the SDA. After the disastrous election results for the Tory party in Scotland, Lord Young is much more powerful in the Cabinet than is the Secretary of State for Scotland, and if there was a fight between the two over continued assistance to the SDA, I believe that Lord Young would win. That would be a disaster for Scotland, just as the Government are a disaster for Scotland.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the debate. This has been an interesting, if somewhat disrupted debate, and I shall try to answer as many points as possible in the time available.
  First, I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in welcoming the maiden speeches that the House was privileged to hear during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) paid a glowing tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, with which all Conservative Members would wish to be associated. We held him in high regard and in some personal affection, and we were sorry that he had to miss his farewell party because of the storms. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated a knowledge of and concern for his constituency which will have impressed the House.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Hood) has the challenging task of succeeding our good and sadly missed friend, Anna McCurley. As he said, she is a lady of some independence—I say that with some feeling, having been her Whip for some time. While she was a Member of the House, Anna McCurley was a brave spirit whose dedication to the interests of her constituents was unrivalled. She will be a hard act to follow, but we noted the hon. Gentleman's forceful personality today. I hope that he is as pleased as we were by the announcement from Compaq, the computer company in his constituency, that it will double the size of its investment in Erskine and bring forward its plans to create more jobs in the area.
  The House will also have been impressed by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). We noted his close knowledge of and considerable interest in the problems of Aberdeen. Like the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Mr. Gerry Malone, the hon. Gentleman is a solicitor and in his maiden speech he showed the same degree of knowledge and dedication to his constituents as that shown by Gerry Malone. The hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting and informed and the House will look forward to hearing more from all those hon. Members who made maiden speeches today.
  After the drubbing that the antics of Opposition Members received in the press in recent days following the muddle that they got into with all the own goals that they scored as a result of their behaviour last Wednesday, which was a repeat of their behaviour in Scottish Question Time in July when the left hand did not know what the left foot was doing, I prefer to accept the verdict of just one newspaper. I settle for the comment in The Sunday Times, which described the Opposition's behaviour as "wretched ineptitude". That comment was written by Mr. Alan Massey, an independent-spirited journalist.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was quoted as saying that he was happy with what
  534
  had happened. If the expression that I saw on his face after what happened last Wednesday night was happiness, I would hate to see him when he was miserable.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Irrespective of the views that we take of last week's events, it is important that the Minister of State should use his good offices to ensure that the day's debate that we lost on the Scottish economy, for whatever reason, is very speedily rectified.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for me, but I am sure that the usual channels will be listening attentively to his every word.
  I want to deal directly with one of the recurring topics during the debate—the budget of the Scottish Development Agency. There is no need for any doubt in the minds of Opposition Members about the budget. The hon. Member for Garscadden, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) all raised that topic. The total spent within the agency this year will pass £1 billion for the first time. That is a remarkable achievement.
  I can give Opposition Members the budgets at 1986–87 or 1987–88 prices. All the figures show an increase in real terms. At 1986–87 prices the budget was £124·5 million in 1978–79 and £130·9 million in 1986–87. The original budget for 1986–87 represents a 9·5 per cent. increase in real terms.
  Of course it is true that the net budget is lower this year than in some previous years. Less of the taxpayers' money is being put into the agency because less money is needed to help the agency meet its gross budget. To suggest that that is a sign of failure is extraordinary. That implies—and perhaps this is the Opposition's policy—that success can only be judged by the amount of taxpayers' money that is poured into something. That is preposterous. If we simply stuffed the boilers of the SDA with £5 notes, that would be very costly for the taxpayers, but it might make Opposition Members feel better. I suppose that Opposition Members might believe that British Steel was most successful when it was subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of about £1 million a week. That is blatantly absurd. The gross budget is what matters. The fact that the agency's net budget is now lower is a sign of success and that should be warmly welcomed for the taxpayers' sake.
  Opposition Members also raised the question Of industrial investment. They took no account of the fact that investment income can be recycled within the SDA. There is no lack of funds for suitable projects and the agency will confirm that to Opposition Members any time they care to telephone. The agency has 30 per cent. of its budget designated for environmental projects.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I will, of course, be following the figures very carefully. Is the Minister maintaining that all the projects submitted to the agency and that it believes are worth while and worthy of support can be supported by the agency?
  Mr. Lang: The agency has not been constrained in any way through lack of funds. As I was about to say, the environmental projects budget is one in which the investment budget can intrude in the event of a desirable investment project arising towards the end of the year when the investment budget is insufficient to meet the need.
  The agency now has investment in 700 companies, worth more than £40 million. It is generating more and

  535
  more of its own funds and that catalytic role in bringing private investment into the sphere of its investments is particularly encouraging. The ratio of private investment to agency investment is now 13·4:1.
  Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister saying that he is happy that the Scottish Development Agency's net investment is now only 2 per cent. of the total budget?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is distorting the agency's investment role and activities. The agency's industrial investment function is only a small part of its contribution to the Scottish economy's industrial sector. Almost all the agency's budget has an effect upon Scotland's industrial well-being. Given that the agency's budget has increased in real terms since this Government came to office and given the improved leverage of private investment, our commitment to the agency is self-evident and wholly demonstrable.
  The right hon. Member for Govan suggested that the unemployment figures for his constituency had been massaged. That is not true. The unemployment rate for adults, seasonally adjusted, is very close to the OECD standardised definition, although it is calculated differently. The latest comparable figures for August 1987 are 10·2 per cent., according to the United Kingdom definition, and 9·8 per cent. under the OECD definition.
  Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lang: I must move on. I hope to reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech in due course.
  The right hon. Member for Govan asked about regional aid as though it were some dramatic new departure from Government policy. He referred to a broadcast by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State across the Atlantic. The right hon. Gentleman tries to make bricks without straw. There is no cause for alarm. My right hon. and learned Friend's position is clear. The policy for administering regional aid in Scotland is entirely my right hon. and learned Friend's responsibility. The policy formulation is a matter for the Government collectively. My right hon. and learned Friend has a strong interest and he constantly assesses and reassesses its impact on Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to cut the funds for regional assistance in Scotland—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the Minister's reply is inadequate, it is difficult to hear.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members kindly attend to the debate? I do understand the situation.
  Mr. Dewar: Which is the lead Department in charge of the formulation of the criteria and policy framework for regional aid in Scotland?
  Mr. Lang: The formulation of policy, in which my right hon. and learned Friend has an important role, is done collectively by the Government. A large proportion of regional assistance comes to Scotland. About 65 per cent. of Scotland's working population live in a development area, compared with 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend has made his position absolutely clear and he is correct. The policy
  536
  is working extremely well, is continuing to attract new investment into Scotland and is creating new jobs in considerable numbers.
  I welcomed the right hon. Member for Govan's reference to the Govan initiative and to GEAR although I do not understand his grudging support for the involvement of the public sector. I have paid tribute to the regional and district councils in that respect.
  The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the garden festival and asked whether additional funds were being made available specifically for that. No additional funds are being made available, but the budget for the garden festival was taken into account when allocating resources to the agency. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the long-term use of the site. I assure him that the matter is being examined, not only in the context of housing to which he referred, but also in relation to tourism, light industry and office-based activity. The garden festival preparations are going well and over 75,000 season tickets have been sold.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden seemed to think that he had an important point about Locate in Scotland when he spoke last week. It was one of the weakest parts of his argument. Perhaps that is why he compensated with much banging of dust-covered tomes. He implied that I was unsympathetic to Locate in Scotland and its objectives. When we debated inward investment in the Select Committee I took one view on what the appropriate solution would be and the hon. Gentleman took another. At that time I doubted the capacity of the SDA, as it was then constituted and with its record, to deliver the sort of improvement in inward investment that we all sought. I am delighted that it has proved so effective. Like the hon. Member for Gardcadden I saw an opportunity to attract more inward investment and I was keen to see that coming to Scotland. I recognised the shortcomings of the existing arrangement and the need for a more one-door approach.
  The success of the agency is self-evident. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) on his reference to the survey of American companies that paid tribute to Locate in Scotland. They warned that the one thing that would put many of them off coming to Scotland would be the return of a Labour Government. I would take the strictures of the hon. Member for Garscadden on low pay in Scotland more seriously if he welcomed the arrival in Scotland of Health Care International and the hospital that will create 4,000 new jobs in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) also referred to that point and complained about funding being diverted from the Health Service, which is nonsense. The figure of £20 million that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was pure speculation; no discussions have taken place. Lothian is one of the best-funded health authorities in Scotland.
  As to Guinness and the location of its headquarters, the hon. Gentleman should look at the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency. He claimed that it was in his constituency, but his constituency is not in Glasgow; it is in Edinburgh.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made one of the most lamentable contributions to the debate. Until my hon. Friend the Minister had approved the location of the hospital at Clydebank the hon. Gentleman sat on the fence. When he thought he was safe and that he could satisfy the

  537
  dogmatists in his party, he turned against it. It is a major achievement for Locate in Scotland. It will bring 4,000 jobs to Scotland and it should be warmly welcomed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to the importance of the rural activities of the agency. This measure will help to develop the rural strategy of the agency. A replacement scheme for the PRIDE and DRAW schemes will be introduced. I hope to be able to announce details of that scheme very soon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) gave the House a timely reminder that support for the agency comes from the United Kingdom taxpayer. Scotland's needs are fully recognised in the relative advantage of the allocation of resources. The return on funds is an important point to consider, and my hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the record of the agency, which is certainly patchy. The agency has a vital role to play, operating at the difficult end of the market, with small businesses in particular.
  Return is improving and the Treasury review decided that no change should be recommended in the powers, functions and purposes of the agency. I believe that we are right to continue on that basis.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Lang: The SDA has changed out of all recognition since its inception in the far-off days of 1975, when it was considered that the answer to any problem was to throw taxpayers' money at it. Over the past seven years the agency, under the guidance of the present Administration, has become more receptive to the needs of the market and conscious of the need to involve the private sector in the economic development of Scotland. As a result, the agency has become more efficient and, more importantly, has made more effective use of the money provided to it by the Government. The agency's more effective use of public resources can be clearly seen, for example, in its provision of grant aid for private development projects in rural and urban areas.
  The agency has recently faced the challenge of a searching scrutiny of its activities that was carried out by a joint Scottish Office and Treasury team. It emerged well and demonstrated the value of its catalytic and innovative approach to the problems of Scotland's economic development and environmental improvement. It now looks forward to different challenges. The international economy offers threats and opportunities and the agency's activities, which are clearly set out in its latest annual report, seek to minimise the threats and maximise opportunities for Scottish industry by helping Scotland's industries to improve their efficiency, improve their products and processes and increase their already enviable excellent performance. The agency can play its role as a major instrument of the Government's industrial policy. The Labour party's instrument of acquisition has now become our engine of enterprise. Its ugly Socialist duckling is our beautiful free-enterprise swan. I urge the House to support the Bill so that the agency can continue with its fine work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Scottish Development Agency Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  10 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scottish Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament or payable out of the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund under any other enactment which is attributable to the provision of the said Bill increasing the financial limit specified in section 13(3) of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 to £1,200 million.
  This resolution authorises an increase in the limit on the amount of money that can be made available to the SDA by Parliament out of the national loans fund or Consolidated Fund.
  Expenditure by the agency depends on a number of factors, some of which are outwith its control, such as the needs of Scottish industry for investment finance, the availability of land for environmental projects, the speed with which the agency can devise plans and implement schemes and the ability of the agency and Scotland as a whole to continue to attract inward investment. The new financial limit does not, therefore, pre-empt or anticipate decisions on the agency's future expenditure plans. It has been arrived at on the basis of a realistic assessment of the agency's expenditure in recent years—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen carefully to the money resolution.
  Mr. Lang: As I said earlier, that expenditure has been higher in real terms than when the Labour party was in power. In our view, the extra resources being made available to the SDA should allow it to carry on with its present functions uninterrupted over the next five years. That continued commitment to the agency will provide it with stability and maximum flexibility in determining its priorities and the emphasis it puts at any one time on its respective functions.
  The Bill does not lay down how the SDA's funds are to be allocated among its functions. That will depend on a number of things. For example, it will depend on the SDA's own view of its priorities, the state of the Scottish economy and the speed with which land, manpower and other resources can be mobilised. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to take a close interest through the SDA's corporate planning and budgeting process, in how the agency intends to allocate its resources among its various functions and ensure that the impact of the resources provide value for money.
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I feel I should apologise to the House for delaying it for a minute or two at the end of what has been a long day. I hope that I will not have to make too many points. However, there are one or two important things that should be said.
  A recurring theme of this debate is a misunderstanding on the part of many of those who have taken part, especially the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), whose assiduous interest in Scottish affairs is becoming one of the features of our little round in the House. The misunderstanding is that, because the borrowing

  539
  requirement has risen from £700 million to £1,200 million, it in some way represents a new and generous turn on the part of the Government which will be reflected directly in the money that will be made available to the SDA under this resolution. It is important that we should clarify that.
  Although the Minister and I may have had an argument over the past day or two about whether the budget of the SDA, and the Government's contribution, has gone up in real terms, I suspect that we would agree that the increase in the borrowing requirement does not necessarily show any intention by the Government to raise the annual budget and, therefore, the spending power or the ability of the agency to help, revive and rebuild the structure of the Scottish economy. I recognise that the Minister cannot anticipate future Budget statements. However, can he tell us whether the increase is calculated merely to allow the budget to continue at its present level or whether he intends to be more generous in the future?
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Lang: With the leave of the House I shall reply briefly.
  As I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) when I moved Second Reading of the Bill, which I admit was some time ago, I made it clear that the increased financial limit should be sufficient to allow the budget to survive for the next five years, or about that time. No possible commitment can be given to the specific budget of the SDA in years to come.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scottish Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament or payable out of the National Loans Fund or Consolidated Fund under any other enactment which is attributable to the provision of the said Bill increasing the financil limit specified in section 13(3) of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 to £1,200 million.

  BP Share Issue
  10.5 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the BP share issue.
  I told the House on Tuesday that the United Kingdom underwriters to the BP offer had invoked the contractual provision requiring the Treasury to consult on whether the offer should proceed, and I explained the legal procedures that flowed from this. These procedures have now been completed and I wish to announce my decision to the House. It is that the offer should proceed.
  In reaching that decision I have taken full account of the views expressed by BP, by Rothschild's on the underwriters' behalf, and by the Bank of England in its assessment.
  The Government's practice throughout the privatisation programme has been to have Government share sales underwritten. The BP offer was duly underwritten on 15 October. From that moment, the British taxpayer has been entitled to the proceeds of the issue at the offer price, just as the underwriters have been entitled to the fees which they receive under the agreement unless the agreement were terminated.
  However, I recognise the concern that in current unsettled market conditions the sale could have an adverse effect on market sentiment, particularly in markets outside the United Kingdom where underwriting is concentrated in relatively few hands. And the prospect of an unsettled after-market is naturally of particular concern to BP itself.
  I have therefore agreed with the Bank of England arrangements designed to prevent a disorderly market in part-paid BP shares—[Interruption.] I shall start the paragraph again. Right hon. and hon. Members should listen because it is of some significance.
  I have therefore agreed with the Bank of England arrangements designed to prevent a disorderly market in part-paid BP shares developing when dealings in these commence tomorrow. The issue department of the Bank of England will be ready for the next month to purchase these partly-paid shares at a price of 70p, which is roughly equivalent to the price implied by the level at which the fully-paid shares closed in London tonight. These arrangements, which will be put in place as soon as practicable, and certainly by the end of next week, will last for at least one month and not more than two months. Partly-paid BP shares acquired by the issue department will not be resold within the next six months unless the price rises above 120p. These arrangements have been cleared by the regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom.
  I would like the House to be quite clear about the objectives of my decision: first, and most important, to allow taxpayers to secure the full proceeds of the BP sale to which they are entitled; secondly, to ensure that there are orderly after-markets in BP shares; thirdly, to make quite sure that the sale does not add to present difficulties in world markets. It is not my objective in any way to bail out the underwriters, whether in this country or elsewhere. By proceeding as I have indicated, the City will uphold its reputation as the world's leading international financial centre.
  Mr. John Smith: It is hardly satisfactory to be handed this statement as the Chancellor

  541
  walks into the House of Commons. However, I can appreciate his difficulty after days of dither and confusion —[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters.
  Mr. Smith: Is it not clear that this must be the first privatisation which has renationalisation built into it? That perhaps explains the difference between the tone which the Chancellor has adopted today and that which he adopted on Tuesday, when the clear implication was that N. M. Rothschild and others would get no sympathy whatsoever from the Iron Chancellor.
  We have noticed, as we have noticed before, that this Government are prepared to intervene when financial interests are at stake but never when the interests of the country are at stake. The sad fact is that the Government, driven by dogma, are determined to drive through this sale and they are placing the Conservative party's interest before the true national and international interest. Is it not the case that the first victim will be BP, Britain's largest company? Has not BP made vigorous representations to the Government that the sale should not proceed? I invite the Chancellor to tell us what BP said to him. Is not BP appalled that over 30 per cent. of its shares will be held by the most unwilling shareholders in financial history? Is it not the case that BP—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will listen with a little care to the fate of British Petroleum. Is it not clear that BP will suffer from an inevitable over-hang in its shares which will greatly weaken the company's ability to finance its future operations? [Interruption.] I do not regard that, as do Conservative Members, as a matter for hilarity. I regard it as a matter of grave seriousness for BP and this country.
  The interests of BP have been cast aside in the interests of the Conservative party and the Chancellor's need to sell the silver for the political purposes of the Conservative party. Is it not clear that, at a time when the Chancellor has a special responsibility to encourage stability and order in troubled financial matters, he did not take the step which would have created the greatest confidence—to abandon the sale and to announce that it would be abandoned permanently? Instead, to save his political face, he has come up with this curious buy-back arrangement. What will it cost the taxpayer when the Bank of England has to buy the shares at 70p, however low they fall in the market? The right hon. Gentleman has created a floor for the very underwriters whom he told us had to hear the responsibility of their liability. Once again, a lifeboat is being organised to help out the underwriters with whom the Chancellor was going to be so stern a few days ago. Would it not help us all if the Chancellor announced that he was now abandoning not only BP but the foolish threat to privatise water and electricity? He knows that, unless he has some special arrangements such as that, he will find it difficult to underwrite them, and he may find it very difficult to sell them. To get some sanity back to these matters, should he not take the clear-cut decision, which should have been taken days ago, not to abandon BP but to put privatisation to rest and let us get on with some serious subjects?
  Mr. Lawson: It is quite clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had written his little speech before he knew what I was going to say—I dare say he thought I was going to say exactly the opposite. I shall be brief.
  542
  On the first question, I should like to make it absolutely clear that there was no question of any dithering or confusion. The procedures had to be gone through. In fact, I did not receive the Bank's assessment until after 6 o'clock this evening.
  Secondly, on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about either the privatisation or nationalisation of BP, he seems to have failed to notice that BP is in the private sector already. As for his concern for BP, my concern for BP was one of the main reasons I put in place the arrangements to have an orderly after-market in the company's shares. Finally, he has failed to understand the whole point of this operation. Under the operation which I have mentioned, the underwriters will bear the full loss of over £1 billion on the shares between the price at which they had to take them and the floor price that I have set. Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal of pulling the sale—[Interruption.] Oh yes, he said that we should not go ahead with the sale. He would have handed back the £1 billion to the underwriters. We know that the Labour party today is simply the friend of Goldman Sachs. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will listen to those hon. Members whom the Chair calls and not ask questions from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on an extremely difficult decision? As the matter is rather complex, will he tell us whether he can estimate the likely effect on the public sector borrowing requirement?
  Mr. Lawson: It is impossible to make any estimate of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement because it is impossible to say how many underwriters, or indeed any other applicants, will be prepared to sell their partly-paid shares for the price of 70p against the 120p for the partly-paid shares which they had to pay. To the extent that they do, obviously that will be deducted from the £1 billion, which is the value to the Government of the first instalment.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the light of the buy-back arrangement, will the Chancellor, at least in future, spare us his cant on the virtues of the free market? Would it not have been more frank of him, having staked his all on this mega-flotation of BP, to have admitted that he has put his chips on black and the market has come up red? Far from having come before the House as a prudent Chancellor, is it not clear that he is in fact a reckless gambler who has been to the table once too often?
  Mr. Lawson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his percipience in noting that the market has fallen. However, far from being a gambler, I was extremely prudent. I took out an insurance policy with the underwriters.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reaching a decision which, when it is carefully considered by the House and by the country, will be recognised for the value that it contributes in a difficult situation. Whatever may happen to the underwriters and whatever may happen at this juncture to the public sector borrowing requirement, what is important is the contribution that this decision makes to international economic and financial stability. The Chancellor and his right hon. Friends are to be congratulated on that judgment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right

  543
  hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) failed to read his script, to keep up with the play, or to understand what my right hon. Friend has just said?
  Mr Lawson: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He is right to point to the fact that, had there been this badly disorganised after-market in BP, this could have had—it may not have had a big effect, but it was a risk that I had to consider—an adverse effect on stock markets generally. That could have had an effect on the prosperity of the people of this country in these present circumstances. Therefore, I felt that it was right in these exceptional circumstances to put in place this support just below the current market price.
  Mr. John Morris: Will there be any adjustment to the fees paid to the underwriters, and when will the right hon. Gentleman publish the total cost to the taxpayer?
  Mr. Lawson: I will provide the total costs of the offer, including the costs of the fees to the underwriters, as soon as practicable. The taxpayer, however, has had an extraordinarily good deal out of this.
  Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has achieved is that the underwriters and the City, in their words, have been held to the contract that they entered into with the Government and that, at the same time, the Government have ensured that world markets will not be upset by this issue? It is quite brilliant.
  Mr. Lawson: That was certainly the purpose of the conclusion that I reached. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the City of London and in particular to the sub-underwriters. The Association of British Insurers said:
  "ABI Members are quite prepared for the issue to go ahead and they will, of course, meet the obligations they have undertaken. There is no question of the ABI membership seeking to put pressure on the Government to have the BP issue postponed."
  Had this issue been postponed, halted altogether or abandoned, and the underwriters relieved of their obligations, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East sought, the reputation of the City of London would have been tarnished forever.
  Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his measured response to these difficult trading conditions is greatly to be welcomed. Does he also agree that, whilst it is sad that United States brokers appear to be in difficulty and that the United States Treasury appears unable to help them, it is good that the Bank of England and the British financial sector are sufficiently strong to be able to provide a lifeboat for those in difficulty across the pond?
  Mr. Lawson: I would not call this a lifeboat. I think that the House will find that the underwriters do not consider it a lifeboat. If it is a lifeboat, it is the most expensive lifeboat that they have ever seen—expensive for them. My hon. Friend made a good point. This has shown that the City of London, with its tradition and practice of sub-underwriting into sound hands, is a much better place to make share issues than any other financial centre of the world.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Chancellor confirm that one factor leading to his decision
  544
  was direct representations from the American underwriting institutions? Will he tell the House whether any representations were made directly by the American Administration?
  Mr. Lawson: What I will tell the right hon. Gentleman — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]— is that there were very, very forceful representations from the United States, various quarters of the United States, all of them, or nearly all of them—there were exceptions and The Wall Street Journal today incidentally had a very good leading article urging us to go ahead — that I should follow the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and not go ahead with the offer. I declined to accept those representations.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Chancellor accept that setting a floor price for the BP share issue is, in effect, a subsidy from the taxpayers to the underwriters and that following today's announcement the Iron Chancellor will be known as the Marshmallow Chancellor? Does he agree that while he is offering the underwriters a lifeboat the Labour Front Bench would have offered them the whole ship? Will he explain why he is so opposed to subsidies in every area of the economy except when they are subsidies to the City of London?
  Mr. Lawson: It seems to me to be a very strange subsidy to the underwriters if they are obliged to pay 120p for the shares that they have underwritten and then, if they sell them back to the issue department of the Bank of England, they get only 70p. That seems a very strange idea of a subsidy.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: As the Opposition have criticised all previous privatisation measures, which have been oversubscribed, as selling shares at a discount, why are they not delighted that on this occasion we are selling shares at a premium?
  Mr. Lawson: I remember being puzzled by this myself at the time of the Britoil sale, which was also underwritten. The plain fact is that shares sometimes open dealing at above the issue price and sometimes at below the issue price. The Opposition complain in every single case, whichever way it goes, from which one can draw only two conclusions. One is certainly that they disapprove of privatisation, with which indeed we shall be continuing, and which will go from strength to strength. The other is that they do not understand a thing that they are talking about.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Chancellor aware that it is his own reputation and that of the Government that will be tarnished in the eyes of the British people? His angry responses show his irritation at that fact. What is the subsidy, hidden or otherwise, to the American underwriters as well as to the English underwriters? If 70p is to be paid to those wishing to sell their shares, would that still be the case if the share price was 35p?
  Mr. Lawson: At the moment 70p is just below the equivalent of the market price. That offer will remain open for not less than one month and not more than two months, and of course it is there, it is an undertaking whatever happens to the stock market.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What price the free market now?
  Mr. Lawson: It is quite impossible to estimate the cost because one does not know how many people will avail themselves of this offer, or what the share price will be during the period, but what is quite clear is that the cost will be minuscule compared with what the Government are getting from the proceeds of this offer.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Will not the country treat with contempt a party such as the Labour party which jeers at the ingenious solution that my right hon. Friend has found but fails to recall that the whole process of selling BP shares was begun under a Labour Government by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Should we not pay tribute to the British people for having the good sense to put the economy and the fortunes of this country in the hands of the Conservative party and not in the hands of the rabble on the Benches opposite?
  Mr. Lawson: That has been increasingly apparent as the exchanges on this issue have developed. When my hon. Friend referred to the first sale of BP shares by the Labour Government 10 years ago, he might also have reminded the House that it was the equivalent, in today's prices, of a fully-paid share of under 100p.
  Mr. Terry Davis: What will be the cost if everyone goes to the buy-back arrangement?
  Mr. Lawson: That is not going to happen.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: In order to ensure that this brilliant solution—to a problem that simpler minds like mine had thought insoluble — works effectively, will the Chancellor use his influence through the Bank of England to ensure that, in areas in which the Government have influence, there will be no other substantial public flotations during the next two months?
  Mr. Lawson: I am not quite sure what particular issue my hon. Friend can possibly be thinking about. If it is the Channel tunnel, by any outside chance, I have to tell him that the decision on whether and when to go ahead—I am sure that it will go ahead at the appropriate time—will be taken by the company itself. The Government will not have any influence over that.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What sort of commentary is it on the Chancellor's theory of market economics if the Government cannot float one of the richest, most powerful and profitable companies that the world has ever known without intervention because markets cannot cope? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will be announcing a cut in interest rates tomorrow morning to soothe the markets?
  Mr. Lawson: Interest rates will be kept at whatever level is appropriate in the circumstances, keeping in mind the need to bear down on inflation. I shall adjust interest rates as and when I think it is right to do so.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for preserving the jobs and integrity of my BP workers at Wytch Farm in Dorset. Will he comment on a strange change that has taken place? Conservative Members have been rather unfair to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I have done a little research and can tell the Chancellor that when the right hon. Member was Secretary of State for Energy he
  546
  consistently maintained that the investment of the British Government in BP shares was a Treasury matter, and not a nationalisation.
  Mr. Lawson: I recall that, but as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is, unaccountably, not in his place, I do not think we need to dwell on it.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: In the aftermath of this debacle, will the Chancellor now accept that a distinction needs to be drawn between a person who invests in a company with a view to obtaining some benefit over a period from increased output and profits, and a person who buys a state asset at a knock-down price to make a fast buck? Do not the Government realise that by encouraging the latter at the expense of the former they are giving private share ownership a bad name?
  Mr. Lawson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so concerned about the good name of share ownership. I am not only surprised, I am delighted that enlightenment is dawning even in the strangest places. As for the suggestion that the BP share issue was sold at a knock-down price, I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the Opposition have got over the disappointment of his doing precisely the right thing, they will realise that the City of London's word will have been shown to be its bond—it should be remembered that it earns £10 billion a year for the country—and that the problem arose on Wall street? The Chancellor has done exactly the right thing by keeping our name and our nerve. The weak sisters in America have shown the strength of London and how right it is that we are the centre of the financial world.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The City of London comes out of this very well compared with other financial centres. For future privatisations, of which there will be many, I shall certainly need to reconsider the practice of having overseas underwriters.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Chancellor's comments about the small investor came almost as an afterthought in his reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). In view of all the money that was spent on advertising to encourage the small investor, even this minimal relief will represent a great loss for small, inexperienced investors. Is this not a kick in the teeth for people whom the Government have been trying to encourage?
  Mr. Lawson: Obviously I am concerned about the small investor. That is why, as soon as the stock market fell, I withdrew all the advertising. I thought that it was right to do that. Of those small investors who have subscribed, I believe that the overwhelming majority subscribed as long-term investors, not as short-term holders. I believe that we shall find that this is a good long-term investment in Britain's largest company.
  Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on a courageous and historic decision which has shown sensitivity to the market place, firmness and, most important of all, confidence in the market, the financial system in the City and the issuing company? Will he confirm that the precedent for

  547
  maintaining orderly markets after a new issue exists and that that is greatly in the interests of the issuing company and its shareholders and, therefore, of the taxpayer?
  Mr. Lawson: That is right. The real issue that I had to decide was the choice between going ahead with the sale and then, obviously, as any responsible Government would do in the present circumstances, doing something to produce an orderly after-market, and aborting the sale altogether. I decided that it was right to go ahead.
  Mr. Greville Janner: What advice does the Chancellor give to the small investor whom he conned into buying shares at great cost and who is suffering, and will continue to suffer, as a direct and immediate result of this so-called historic decision?
  Mr. Lawson: As I said, small shareholders who have put their money into BP have overwhelmingly done so as a long-term investment. We have encouraged them to do that by having a loyalty bonus for them if they hold shares for a certain length of time, during which time they will enjoy the success of the company as measured in the dividends that they receive. The small investor, I am sure, will be glad to have had a holding in BP, even though all investors have clearly not been unaffected by the fall in the stock market.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, so far from bailing out underwriters with taxpayers' money, even if every underwriter took advantage of the offer to repurchase shares at 70p, they would collectively suffer a loss of more than £1 billion and that, if that were to be the case, the Government would own exactly the same number of shares in BP as they did three months ago, but would have received more than £1 billion and thereby would have effected the greatest short sale in history?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend has understood the position entirely accurately. That was certainly not our intention when we made the offer, but it is the position today.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Is that the position? The Government could have bought the shares back freely on the open market at less than 70p, if the market fell below that, and made more than £1 billion. Has not a deal been done between the Government and the underwriters? The flotation had to go ahead to save the Government's face, but some subsidy had to be arranged for the underwriters, or they would not have underwritten the flotations of water and electricity. That is the deal that has been done: a direct subsidy for the underwriters, and an intervention in the market by the Government to prevent the shares from falling below 70p.
  Mr. Lawson: Had I sought to help the underwriters, I should have taken the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and cancelled the offer. Instead, I did what was right in the circumstances — right for the City, and right for the Government's privatisation programme.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Did not this technically brilliant solution secure some £7,000 million for the public purse and in the interests of the taxpayer? Can my right hon. Friend tell us how much was raised by the first sale of BP?
  Mr. Lawson: I do not recall the sums, but it was certainly considerably less. The price per share was under 100p in today's equivalent, compared with the 330p for which we have sold our 31 per cent. stake in BP today.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Chancellor answer the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? What did BP say to the Chancellor when it had discussions with him yesterday and again today? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, to save the face of the Tory party, he has put at risk the future of a great company which employs many thousands of people in constituencies throughout the country? Any other Chancellor who had made such a mess of such a serious and important financial matter would have resigned. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman give his resignation to the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there have been difficult market conditions. As for what BP said, the company informed me that it was very concerned that there should be an orderly after-market in its shares.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the BP issue naturally assumes very great importance to us here tonight—and my right hon. Friend seems to have dealt with it very skilfully—we must bear in mind that we are talking about a little over £1 billion, after a fortnight in which the stock markets of the world have fallen in value by $1,000 billion. The wider problem remains. Will my right hon. Friend be continuing the energetic search for international co-operation to deal with it?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Of course I shall be doing that. It is very important that we move swiftly to international agreement on measures to deal with the current financial problem. At the heart of that must be effective action by the United States to reduce the federal deficit significantly, by more than the $23 billion suggested in the Gramm-Rudman II Bill, and to do it in ways that will be credible in the markets. With that as the centrepiece, I believe that it is possible for other countries to contribute their part. Certainly we in the United Kingdom are fully prepared to contribute ours.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Have the underwriters, either here or in America, considered—or threatened—legal action against the Government on the basis of a different interpretation of the underwriting contracts from that which the Chancellor would accept?
  Mr. Lawson: I have heard one or two rumours of that, but an awful lot of rumours fly around. I have no evidence of that whatsoever.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Following his wise decision, will my right hon. Friend say how much of the £1 billion underwriting loss will be borne by overseas underwriters, to the very clear benefit of this country?
  Mr. Lawson: I do not think that we are particularly in business in order to extract money from other countries by these means, but it is certainly true that the biggest single losses will be borne by United States underwriters.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Chancellor say what has happened to popular capitalism, or people's capitalism? Has it been temporarily

  549
  abandoned, or has it been permanently abandoned? What has happened to the free market? Has the free market been temporarily abandoned, or has it been permanently abandoned? How many more Conservative principles are to be abandoned under the right hon. Gentleman's Chancellorship before he resigns?
  Mr. Lawson: That was a rather tired question. Popular capitalism is alive and well. One in five adults in this country now owns shares, and that number will steadily increase.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very sensible and quite brilliant method of dealing with this matter. One factor that the Opposition fail to realise is that by taking the action that he has taken my right hon. Friend will shore up the market in BP shares, that he will safeguard the future of that company and that he will also give confidence tomorrow to the markets in London and throughout the world, which can only be good for future world stability?
  Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Confidence throughout the world is affected primarily by many other factors, to some of which I referred when I replied to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). However, in so far as the outcome of the BP controversy is a factor, the decision that I have taken will clearly be a stabilising element in the question.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: While most hon. Members have on occasion had great sympathy for the Chancellor, tonight he is dangerously looking rather like the Joe Bugner of the financial markets. He fights a good fight with the underwriters, but is it not a fact that he has placed the Bank of England as underwriters of last resort, not just to United Kingdom financial institutions but particularly to American financial institutions, a role in which the Federal Reserve and the banking institutions of the United States might have refused to involve themselves?
  The Chancellor has refused to say what was the exact position of Sir Peter Walters and the board of BP in relation to the Chancellor's actions this evening. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that BP's view was that this sale should have been aborted?
  Mr. Lawson: No, I shall not reply in those simple terms, because the discussions with BP were confidential. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what took place does not correspond with the account that he has just given to the House.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever be the market price of BP shares at the moment, their asset value is tremendous and holds superb potential for the future, that many of the small shareholders, about whom hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned, will wish to hold these shares, and that they will look not only to their asset value for the future but to the dividend income that they will obtain from them?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. That is the second time today that I have agreed with him in the House. It must be a record.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) in
  550
  respect of the continuing crisis which sparked off the problems with the BP sale, and taking into account what the Chancellor said tonight, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not likely to get much assistance from West Germany and Japan in solving the crisis, because they have won the economic war? With a trade surplus between them of $120 billion, why should those two nations care tuppence about bailing out the Chancellor or even the Americans?
  As for the sorry saga with BP, history will record the fact that another Tory, Winston Churchill, bought the shares for £2 million, while in 1987 the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to sell the first tranche at 120p and then had to fix another market price at 70p, with consequential costs to the taxpayer, at a time when child benefit has been frozen and the pensioners and disabled are being hammered.
  Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman fails to grasp the fact that there can be only substantial benefit to the taxpayer from this. If the taxpayer sells the shares at 120p and then buys some of them back at 70p, he will have made a profit.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a long question and he got his answer.
  Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House and the nation on his courage and skill in making this statement tonight? Does he agree that the brightness of the reputation and honour of the City of London remain untarnished, and that that of the company is reflected by its ability to produce profits? The statement will certainly enhance the reputation of BP.
  Mr. Lawson: A main reason, which weighed very heavily with me, why I decided that it was right, having heard representations, many of which were in the contrary direction — as the House knows, the majority of the underwriters asked for the issue to be called off—to go ahead, was my profound concern that the reputation of the City of London should remain untarnished. It was important that, whatever the pressures may have been in other financial centres, that reputation should continue to ride high. During this experience, we have seen the much greater soundness of the City of London compared with other financial cities.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: If the Chancellor's announcements this evening, especially the buy-back procedures, were necessary to avoid instability after flotation, because of the effect that that could have on the prosperity of the country, what effect will the 25 per cent. fall in share values in the past 14 or 15 days have on the prosperity of the country?
  Mr. Lawson: As I said on Tuesday, the fall in share prices worldwide will have a dampening effect on economic activity, and that will affect the prosperity of the British people as well as people thoughout the world. At this stage, it is impossible to put a figure on the extent of that damage. I am striving, in my actions in this country and in collaboration with my opposite numbers overseas, to take action which will minimise the effects on the world economy of the sharp fall in stock markets.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the principal concern of financial markets is confidence and that, as a result of his actions today, the

  551
  City of London has increased the confidence of people in various markets and the Government and their financial strategy have retained the confidence of people around the world? Does he agree that the only loss of confidence is that in the Opposition?
  Mr. Lawson: Of course, the electorate delivered a very substantial vote of no confidence in June of this year and subsequent events have vindicated that.
  Mr. Nellist: How about an election next week?
  Mr. Lawson: As to the suggestion from a sedentary position by the hon. Member that we should have an election next week, I feel that that would put the people of this country to unnecessary inconvenience, given that our position in the polls is even higher now than it was in June.
  Several Hon. Members rose —
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call hon. Members who have been regularly trying to catch my eye, but I ask them not to repeat questions that have already been asked.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When proceeding with the BP share sale — after a fashion — will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be having discussions with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the chairman of the Tory party, to see whether he intends to continue with his normal practice after a privatisation of writing to the lucky shareholders offering them, as an additional blessing, membership of the Tory party and cut-price crates of Christmas claret—Chateau Rothschild usually, I believe. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman considers that unnecessary because in this case it will be the 100,000 disgruntled shareholders who will be writing to the chairman of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Lawson: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), although I am very happy to discuss this matter with him, as I am to discuss any matter with him; he is very good value. As for the hon. Gentleman's observations, I congratulate him on his perspicuity in noticing that shares can go down as well as up.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the parallel transaction in the BP placing—the rights issue — has also been enabled to go ahead because of his action this evening? Can he therefore refute the Opposition's claim that BP is in a worse position as a result of his shrewd action today?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. BP was anxious to raise £1½ billion to repay borrowings which it had incurred as a result of the Sohio acquisition. This means that it will be able to repay its borrowings and be in a stronger position as a result.
  Mr. Ron Brown: Is it not clear that the crisis of the capitalist system will continue and that jobs will be put in jeopardy, particularly at BP? Will the Chancellor say something about that—or do jobs not matter to this Government?
  Mr. Lawson: There is no danger to any jobs in BP. As for jobs generally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that unemployment in this country has fallen more rapidly in the last year than it has in any other country.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is it not demeaning for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this Government in crisis to be dragged reluctantly to the House of Commons earlier this week and again this evening, to the considerable embarrassment of the Leader of the House? No wonder the Prime Minister is looking sheepish. Why will not the Chancellor tell us the cost to the Bank of England of underwriting this issue? Is it not BP on HP?
  Mr. Lawson: Any marginal reluctance that I may have in coming to the House is because I know that I will have questions like that from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On Monday I compared the Chancellor to Nero. Someone suggested that the right hon. Gentleman would be better compared to Caligula. But Caligula's horse was alive. The Chancellor has been flogging a dead horse, and he has managed to flog it to 250,000 applicants for shares. If the Chancellor believes that they will be happy with that deal, he is deceiving himself if not the House. Will the Chancellor tell the House what action his Department will take with regard to applicants who cancel their cheques?
  Mr. Lawson: If that were to happen, that is a matter that obviously I would have to consider, but I believe that those shareholders put their money into BP as a long-term investment, not to make a short-term profit. I do not believe that very many of them will cancel their cheques.
  Mr. Pat Wall: I am glad to see that the Chancellor has caught up with his reading of The Wall Street Journal and note that his reading is about as selective as mine. I should like to know how he can claim as a triumph a three-week period in which he has grossly overvalued the shares of the BP offer. As a believer in the free market, he has been forced to build a raft to save the financial institutions — a piece of anti-Tory legislation, much like the nationalisation of Rolls-Royce, which was carried out by a previous Tory Government—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
  Mr. Wall: I am asking how the Chancellor can claim all of these tragedies as a triumph. He said that 300,000 would make money and they have lost it. What he has achieved is not people's capitalism, but, for those 280,000 investors, people's decapitation.
  Mr. Lawson: What I am claiming is that the taxpayer is getting the money to which he is entitled and that the reputation of the City of London remains untarnished. Orderly markets in BP shares will have been secured-something that is not only important to BP but, in these difficult financial times, is perhaps important rather more widely.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Has the Chancellor learnt any lessons from the events of the past few days? If so, will he share those lessons with the House, or does he intend blithely to carry on looting public assets in the same way as he has proceeded so far in his term of office?
  Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we shall continue with our privatisation programme—this question was asked from the Opposition Front Bench —the simple answer is yes we shall.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that throughout the past two weeks of turbulence on the stock exchange the one group of investors who have refused to be panicked and who have looked to the long term and seen the underlying strength of the British economy has been the small investors?
  Mr. Lawson: All the evidence shows that the small investors are more likely to be long-term holders than many of the City institutions.

  PETITION

    Anna Chertkova
    11.4 pm
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I have the honour to present this petition signed by 81 members of my constituency from the Baptist church in Loose, and the Christian Bookshop in Maidstone calling for the speedy release of Anna Chertkova, who was wrongfully detained in a Soviet psychiatric hospital for many years.
    The petition showeth,
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Foreign Secretary in representations to the Soviet Government with the purpose of obtaining Miss Chertkova's release and reunion with relatives in the West.
    And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  School Closures (Waveney)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  11.14 pm
  Mr. David Porter: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the many people of Waveney who are deeply concerned about the closure proposals affecting Waveney schools. I accept that Waveney is not unique in having some schools on death row. Within Suffolk several decisions are awaited on closure proposals. Those decisions are to be taken by my hon. Friend the Minister. Indeed, all over the country schools are being closed, as they always have been, for a variety of reasons ranging from newbuild to falling rolls, from reorganisation of two-tier to three-tier or for economic or educational reasons. That, put simply, is fair enough. No one expects education to stand still and not be in need of continuous reassessment.
  The widespread concern in Waveney stems from a number of sources: the over-zealousness of the county council and the manner of its approach; the educational arguments about small versus large schools; the community needs in an area on a geographical limb, as Waveney is; the contradictions in the Government's policy of reducing the so-called surplus places, yet widening parental choice; and the dilemma of listening to democratic demands, yet responding only to one interest's viewpoint.
  I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment in detail on closure proposals or on objections regarding Reydon high school, Henham primary school and Wrentham primary school. In any event, the objection period is not over and I have not yet asked him to receive a deputation. Those decisions are not yet his to make. However, I hope that when they are he will be able to make a speedy response.
  The decision to close Flixton primary school in Waveney has already been taken, and, although we have corresponded and he is under no obligation to say anything about it, I hope that in general terms—this is the core of the debate—he will feel able to shed some light on why a clear and unequivocal expression of community feeling can be overridden in favour of the views of the county council's civil servants and councillors in the hope, perhaps, that if Flixton goes their own areas will be saved.
  One would be hard put to find an authority more prudent or loyal to the Government than Suffolk. Many members of the authority are acutely unhappy at being pilloried for their interpretation of Government wishes. They came to see my hon. Friend the Minister for closure clarification, based on the Department of Education and Science circular 3/87. They learnt from that meeting that it is up to them. They adopted a consultation exercise with parents, governors, churches, parish councils and the community, which is recommended to the letter by the Department. However, that exercise left every person involved feeling that the authority had already decided to close the school, that no arguments would change any minds and that the whole thing was an expensive and pointless farce. Social engineering is not confined to Left-wing councils.
  Local education authorities must have the powers necessary to do their business. They are confined to
  556
  educational and financial arguments. However, Suffolk has given closure decisions solely to its education committee, so decisions are not ratified by a full council. My hon. Friend the Minister has an education brief, but I submit that he also has a wider brief.
  To the widespread disbelief of many people in Waveney, the authority maintains — my hon. Friend upheld it by closing Flixton—that small schools per se are educationally unviable. The county officers sound almost Shirley Williamsesque in maintaining an optimum number regardless of any contrary views. I will not waste precious time rehearsing the arguments in favour of smaller personal education, except to say that I find the case against smaller schools to be unproven.
  The need to bolster numbers at the Sir John Lemon high school in Beccles by transferring children from Reydon or taking primary children from Flixton to Ilkeshall St. Lawrence or from Wrentham and Henham on to Reydon primary school may be educationally justified at a time of fewer children being born outside the town areas, but it is not being presented to the community in that light. The result, wrongly or rightly, is that people feel that the authority wanted the school land for disposal, and then wriggled around for a specious educational vindication.
  I feel sure that the Minister will take all these points into account and give weight to the fact that in these rural areas, versatile and dedicated teachers not only work but live alongside their pupils. Thus, the ongoing educational process is both modern and traditional. I hope he will grasp this opportunity to recognise that and will send these schools forward without the shadow of the axe but with constructive progress towards standards of rising excellence.
  As I said in my maiden speech on 30 June last, most of my constituents live in the Greater Lowestoft area while about 30,000 do not. Many of those 30,000 live in an area covered by a rural development plan. Anyone who has driven north of Ipswich or east of Norwich will vouch for the inadequacy of our roads network. The prosperity and rapidly rising growth seen by hon. Members who represent other East Anglian seats has not yet reached the most easterly constituency of the British isles, nor the one of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss).
  Our relative isolation is part of our attraction, but with fewer young people as a proportion of the population who will service the Reydon and Southwold area if it is to become a young person-free zone? What price a balanced community in terms of health care, social mix and environmental harmony if younger families and families with young children no longer see schools as an organic part of their areas? The Minister can play a part in strengthening that "social cement" by which the Secretary of State has graphically described small schools in villages.
  The Secretary of State, at Blackpool on 7 October, said:
  "Choice is what we want to extend to everybody"—
  and he cited the 1405 Act, which he said laid down
  "that every man or woman, of what Estate or condition that they be, shall be free to set their son or daughter to take learning at any manner of school that pleaseth them within the Realm."
  The Secretary of State commented:
  "this eloquent declaration of free choice was restated in the Education Act 1944 in the famous phrase that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."

  557
  I support that aim to the last echo. In Lowestoft there are three high schools. Parents have choice. But if that is to mean anything in the country as a whole, it must mean biting some tough bullets, and the authority cannot do that unless the Secretary of State allows it to do so.
  The revised targets for removing spare capacity by 1991, as ordered in circular 3/87, mean in Suffolk a further 3,500 primary and a further 7,500 secondary places being taken out. That represents 10 Reydon high schools and perhaps 100 primary schools. Who is to say that the birth rate will not rise again?
  Some will say that that scale of closures is right educationally. Many will say it is right financially, even with bussing and building costs added. But it does not square with parental choice. It is no good saying that these people can choose to live in the towns. That is the "let them eat cake" approach. What quality of life would Suffolk have if everyone lived in the towns?
  Hon. Members are familiar with the campaign that is inevitable every time a school is due for closure. Local councillors who live, work and have their being in their communities have a duty to respond to the feelings of their communities, just as we have duties here. We listen to the experts, and we pay them to advise us, but we do not have to accept their advice every time. If we did, we would not need elected councillors, or even Members of Parliament.
  We must heed gut reaction and go for the heart, but I beg the Minister not to tear the heart out of the community. If that community wants its schools so badly, it should not have to fight the authority for them. I urge the Minister to get Suffolk county council off the backs of the community by allowing more to be raised and spent, if that is what is wanted in response to the demand for community education. I ask him also to get off Suffolk county's back by ending this absurd line on surplus places in the fastest growing region of the country.
  The Minister will not wish to comment on specific proposals, but I know he will add my comments to the lorry-load of representations that he will be receiving and will give them due consideration, even though they carried no weight in the Flixton school case. I dare say also that he is unable to postpone decisions on closures until the opting out measures in the proposed Education Bill have been approved by the House.
  Perhaps the Minister will clarify those proposals for schools under death sentence seeking grant maintained status. Perhaps he will comment on whether feeder and smaller primary schools will be able to opt out of the parent high school, if that is the wish of the community, and confirm whether a decision, once taken, is irreversible.
  I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House not only to answer me but to answer my constituents and the local education authority, who will follow his remarks very closely.
  I conclude by asking by what right we say that any expert knows better than parents how best to educate their children, especially in a sane, sensible, attractive area such as Waveney.
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): Before responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) I should like to pay tribute to the way in which he has presented the views of his constituents. Long before the general election, he demonstrated his concern
  558
  over important local issues when he joined a deputation led by his predecessor, Jim Prior, to present the views of parents objecting to the closure of Flixton primary school. It is very clear to me that the Waveney constituency is in very good hands.
  Before I attempt to deal with the specific points raised during this debate, I must remind the House of the background against which the Government must consider proposals for the closure of schools. The Government do not seek the closure of small schools purely for the sake; of closure. I am only too aware, from the many deputations I see from all over the country, that the loss of a school is always a matter of great local concern.
  However, we cannot ignore the fact that nationally school rolls have fallen dramatically. I must stress that when proposals are made legally to us by local education authorities the educational interests of the children are uppermost in our minds. It was no accident that when my Department issued guidance to local education authorities earlier this year what is now more commonly referred to as circular 3/87 was actually entitled "Providing for Quality".
  The circular made it very clear that the assessment of the viability of an individual school is not solely a question of pupil numbers. A true assessment must also take account of its ethos, the quality and balance of expertise of its teachers, links with other schools, the fitness of its premises and the extent to which all these factors can be sustained. In our consideration of rural areas, we said that account should also be taken of travelling distances to other schools and of the age of the children involved. Size in itself is not a determinant of the quality of a school. There are good and bad schools of all sizes. Particularly in rural areas, good teachers in small schools have done much to overcome the limitations of size. However, there must be general agreement that a point can be reached at which, even with disproportionate resourcing, a small school cannot always overcome the educational difficulties caused by having only a small number of pupils. In small primary schools the age range in classes can become very wide and there is little opportunity for proper group interaction.
  The Government set out some general principles concerning the size of schools in our White Paper "Better Schools" but, as we emphasised in the circular "Providing for Quality", these are not to be regarded by LEAs as narrowly prescriptive. We expect education authorities to think long and hard before proposing to close a schooll, and to take account of the wider considerations I have just mentioned, and of the views of local people.
  Over the past few years, the Suffolk local education authority has approached the problem of falling school rolls in two different ways. I understand that the authority has conducted area reviews where it has looked at a secondary school or schools and the feeder schools to see what, if any, rationalisation might be undertaken. The authority has also examined all primary schools where there are fewer than three full-time teachers.
  As my hon. Friend knows, his constituency has experienced both types of the reviews being conducted by the Suffolk LEA. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after very careful consideration of all the issues put to him, approved the closure of a small primary school at Flixton. Reydon has been the subject of an area review.

  559
  My hon. Friend represents a constituency where there are many small villages and hamlets, many of which have small primary schools. One of these schools at Flixton was the subject of review by the Suffolk authority, following which statutory proposals were put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the school's closure from July 1988. This proposal was approved after careful consideration of all the arguments, including those put to us by local objectors.
  As my hon. Friend has said the Suffolk LEA has conducted a thorough review of primary and secondary provision in the Reydon area. I was aware before this evening's debate that the review had occasioned much local interest. I am aware also that the whole of Reydon closed down for a day in an attempt to demonstrate how the town might be affected. That shows that local concerns are strong, as does the fact that my hon. Friend has chosen to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
  I understand that educational provision in Reydon is presently organised on the basis of 5–11 primary schools and 11–16 secondary schools and that it is the authority's intention to reorganise provision on a three-tier middle school system. I should explain to my hon. Friend that my Department has no locus in the formulation of proposals for any change in the nature or pattern of school provision. This is entirely a matter for local education authorities. It is for the Suffolk authority, which has the statutory duty to provide primary and secondary education, to consider how best to discharge that duty and to make proposals for change as it considers necessary. The law then provides for local objectors to make their views known and for the Secretary of State to take all relevant matters into consideration before taking decisions.
  Against this background, I cannot comment at this stage on what is apparently emerging from the Reydon area review. The publication of statutory notices for changes in the education system in Reydon and the surrounding villages provides my hon. Friend's constituents with a legal right to register any objections which they may have. All public notices explain the procedures for lodging objections and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he encourages his constituents to make their views known in the proper form.
  560
  For my part, I promise that any statutory objections to proposals for change in the pattern and number of schools serving the Reydon area will be very carefully considered before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes any decisions. I am also willing to receive and listen attentively to any representations that my hon. Friend may yet care to make. I hope that he will accept that these elements of the decision-making process are not empty rituals. We as a Government are prepared to listen to the views of parents. In the final analysis, we are concerned to see that children receive the best education possible that is commensurate with the proper use of the available financial resources.
  My hon. Friend has posed the question whether, if the Suffolk authority make statutory proposals for the closure of Reydon high school, the school will be allowed to opt out of the maintained system. I am afraid that I must say to him that the legislation which will allow for schools to opt out has yet to be placed before Parliament. Until that legislation has secured parliamentary approval, statutory proposals can be considered only under the law as it now stands. We did, however, make it clear in our consultation document on grant maintained schools that, once the new legislation is in place, it would be possible for school governors to seek grant maintained status as a counter proposition to an authority's proposal that a school should close. The Secretary of State would consider any such proposal on its merits. The likely future viability of a school will, of course, be relevant in the context of an application for GM status as well as in considering closure proposals.
  In the meantime, the Secretary of State will, as always, take all relevant considerations into account in reaching decisions on statutory proposals. Where school closures are proposed, I have no doubt that objectors will make known their view that a particular school remains viable. The Secretary of State weighs all such issues in the balance before reaching any decision.
  I appreciate the concerns and anxieties of parents in the Reydon area, but I can firmly assure my hon. Friend that they will receive a fair hearing from me.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on the earnestness and robustness with which he made his views so clear in the debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

WALES

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Ten per cent., but see (c) below.

  (b) The equal opportunities officer is also responsible for pay and allowances policy, superannuation, training including the senior management development programme, pay superannuation and conditions of service of staff of non-departmental public bodies, terms of appointment of consultants and line management of operational staff.

  (c) This is not separately identifiable. The equal opportunities officer is responsible for co-ordinating the Civil Service policy on non-discrimination in my Department; other staff within personnel management division and line managers are to varying degrees responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring equal opportunities policy.

  (d) There is a number of occasions throughout the year when equal opportunities officers from all Departments meet.

  (e) The general guidelines on training were included in the "Programme of Action for Women in the Civil Service" issued by the OMCS(MPO) in 1984 and these were brought to the attention of the equal opportunities officer and departmental training officer.

  (f) Applications for job sharing, part-time working and parental leave are sympathetically considered against the needs of efficient management. My Department will shortly be issuing to all staff a leaflet on coping with domestic changes which will provide comprehensive information and advice on the facilities available for part-time working and job sharing, special leave, maternity leave and reinstatement.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much was spent by his Department in each of the last five years on the care and treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia: and what percentage each figure was of total expenditure on (a) mental and (b) all health services;
  342
  (2) what is the current annual cost overall per patient to his Department's health and social security budget of the care and treatment of patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not collected in Wales.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many current occupants of National Health Service hospital and unit beds in Wales have a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis; and what those figures are as a percentage of (a) mental and (b) all hospital beds in Wales; and how those figures compare with each of the past five years;

  (2) how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis and subsequently taken by the police under section to hospital have been refused admission by hospitals in Wales in each of the last five years;

  (3) if he will list for each of the last five years in Wales how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals, after a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis, having been proved vulnerable boarders, subsequently became voluntary boarders.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic pychosis were discharged from mental illness hospital in Wales in each of the last five years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of people discharged from, mental illness hospitals with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis is not collected centrally. The following table provides a breakdown of the total number of discharges, giving the numbers of discharges directly to local authority residential care (including those discharges to local authority homes for the mentally disordered), the number of deaths, and the numbers of those discharged elsewhere. These figures relate only to the number of discharges and will therefore include a number of patients who were subsequently readmitted and re-discharged within the same year.

  Schizophrenic psychosis: Discharges from mental illness hospitals and units in Wales: 1982–1986

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Discharges directly to Local Authority residential care

  26

  14

  19

  21

  18

  Other discharges

  1,627

  1,701

  1,682

  1,812

  1,750

  Deaths

  31

  21

  20

  22

  26

  All deaths and discharges

  1,684

  1,736

  1,721

  1,855

  1,794

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what funds have been specifically earmarked for the care of the mentally ill following the closure of mental hospitals in Wales in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  There have been no closures of mental illness hospitals in Wales in the last year. However, over £1·7 million of central funding has been allocated during
  343
  1987–88 under the joint finance and mental health development schemes to new projects designed to cater for mentally ill people in the community.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  The required information, measured on the basis of whole-time equivalents as at 30 September, is as follows:

  Mental Illness Community Psychiatric Nurses

  Whole-time equivalents

  1983

  143·5

  1984

  143·5

  Schizophrenic psychosis, admissions by diagnosis and order of admission

  Mental illness hospitals and units in Wales

  Numbers

  Percentage change in numbers

  Rates per 100,000 population

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All Admissions

  All types

  1,731

  1,888

  1,836

  +6·1

  62

  67

  65

  Simple type

  31

  55

  37

  +19·4

  1

  2

  1

  Hebephrenic type

  23

  18

  26

  +13·0

  1

  1

  1

  Catatonic type

  12

  20

  11

  -8·3

  —

  1

  —

  Paranoid type

  232

  265

  247

  +6·5

  8

  9

  9

  Acute schizophrenic episode

  25

  32

  59

  +136·0

  1

  1

  2

  Latent schizophrenia

  4

  —

  3

  -25·0

  —

  —

  —

  Residual schizophrenia

  303

  286

  284

  -6·3

  11

  10

  10

  Schizoaffective type

  129

  167

  145

  +12·4

  5

  6

  5

  Other

  15

  13

  13

  -13·3

  1

  —

  —

  Unspecified

  957

  1,032

  1,011

  +5·6

  34

  37

  36

  First Admissions

  All types

  209

  222

  193

  -7·7

  8

  8

  7

  Simple type

  4

  12

  5

  +25·0

  —

  —

  —

  Hebephrenic type

  3

  2

  1

  -66·7

  —

  —

  —

  Catatonic type

  1

  6

  2

  +100·0

  —

  —

  —

  Paranoid type

  51

  32

  36

  -29·4

  2

  1

  1

  Acute schizophrenic episode

  10

  6

  16

  +60·0

  —

  —

  1

  Latent schizophrenia

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Residual schizophrenia

  11

  3

  10

  -9·1

  —

  —

  —

  Schizoaffective type

  12

  19

  15

  +25·0

  —

  1

  1

  Other

  7

  5

  3

  -57·1

  —

  —

  —

  Unspecified

  109

  137

  105

  -3·7

  4

  5

  4

  Source: Mental Health Inquiry

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the discharges and deaths by length of stay, including percentage change in numbers and percentage distribution, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in Wales for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Schizophrenic psychoses, discharges and deaths by length of stay

  Mental illness hospital and units in Wales

  Numbers

  Percentage change

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Discharges and Deaths

  All lengths

  1,721

  1,855

  1,794

  +4·2

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  344

  Whole-time equivalents

  1985

  138·0

  1986

  142·5

  1987

  150·1

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the admissions by diagnosis and order of admissions, including percentage change in numbers and rates per 100,000 population, of patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis in Wales for the years 1984–86 inclusive.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the following table:
  345

  Numbers

  Percentage change

  Percentage distribution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1984–86

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Under one month

  977

  1,109

  1,088

  +11·4

  56·8

  59·8

  60·6

  One month

  478

  504

  462

  -3·3

  27·8

  27·2

  25·8

  Three months

  212

  186

  190

  -10·4

  12·3

  100·

  10·6

  One year

  54

  54

  51

  -5·6

  3·1

  2·9

  2·8

  Five years

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  Discharges

  All lengths

  1,701

  1,833

  1,768

  +3·9

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under one month

  972

  1,107

  1,085

  +11·6

  57·1

  60·4

  61·4

  One month

  474

  503

  459

  -3·2

  27·9

  27·4

  26·0

  Three months

  209

  182

  181

  -13·4

  12·3

  9·9

  10·2

  One year

  46

  40

  40

  -13·0

  2·7

  2·2

  2·3

  Five years and over

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  0·1

  0·2

  Deaths

  All lengths

  20

  22

  26

  +30·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Under one month

  5

  2

  3

  -40·0

  25·0

  9·1

  11·5

  One month

  4

  1

  3

  -25·0

  20·0

  4·5

  11·5

  Three months

  3

  4

  9

  +200·0

  15·0

  18·2

  14·6

  One year

  8

  14

  11

  +37·5

  40·0

  63·6

  34·6

  Five years and over

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4·5

  —

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations he has received on the provision of community care for patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis discharged from mental illness hospitals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidance his Department gives to mental illness hospitals on the retention of patients whose condition is unlikely to improve; and what is the current policy of each hospital in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Representations are received from time to time from patients, their families, carers, voluntary organisations and others. Our policy is for the development by district health authorities, in collaboration with other authorities, of a locally based pattern of services for those suffering from mental illness, including schizophrenia. To this end authorities are developing services to prevent avoidable hospital admissions and long-term institutional care.

  District Health Authorities (Expenditure)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of over or underspending by each Welsh district health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  A number of health authorities in Wales are currently reported to be experiencing overspending relative to the budgets which they determined in their

  At January each year

  Welsh counties

  1978–79

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Clwyd

  19·1

  18·4

  17·8

  18·7

  18·5

  18·8

  Dyfed

  17·0

  16·6

  16·4

  16·7

  16·8

  16·7

  Gwent

  18·6

  18·0

  17·7

  17·7

  17·6

  18·0

  Gwynedd

  18·3

  17·0

  16·1

  16·2

  16·0

  15·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  18·7

  18·3

  17·5

  18·2

  17·5

  18·1

  Powys

  16·4

  16·0

  15·5

  15·8

  15·3

  15·1

  South Glamorgan

  18·9

  18·6

  18·4

  18·5

  18·3

  18·1

  West Glamorgan

  17·2

  16·9

  16·9

  17·0

  16·7

  16·5

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access
  346
  operational plans at the start of the year. There are particular difficulties in Gwynedd, but while minor overspendings on programmes have also been reported in Clwyd, East Dyfed, Gwent, Mid Glamorgan, Pembrokeshire, West Glamorgan and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, it is not expected that these authorities will exceed their cash allocations this year.

  In all cases, authorities have a statutory duty to keep their cash spending each year within allocated resources; they must therefore take action to ensure that cash limits are not breached. As in the case of Gwynedd, the Department is prepared to assist by providing temporary cash loans to prevent any breach of cash limits until spending is brought back under control.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each Welsh local education authority the pupil to teacher ratio for 1978–79, 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, respectively.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The overall pupil-teacher ratios in maintained nursey, primary and secondary schools are given in the following table. Information in respect of 1987–88 is not yet available.

  under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.
  347
  Mr. Walker
  My Department has registered 42 uses of personal data under the terms of the Data Protection Act. Details are contained in the register of data users, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  No charge will be made for the provision of information which is presently made available free of charge. In other cases, my Department will recover the costs, which will vary from one data holding to another, of complying with requests for access to data holdings, within the limit of the maximum fee which may be charged.

  Welsh Development Agency spending in Alyn and Deeside constituency

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Cash prices1

  2·5

  3·6

  9·0

  3·6

  2·4

  1·3

  6·1

  1·6

  Percentage change on previous year (per cent.)

  —

  44

  150

  -150

  -33

  -46

  369

  -74

  1986·87 prices2

  4·2

  5·1

  11·5

  4·3

  2·7

  1·4

  6·3

  1·6

  Percentage change on previous year (per cent.)

  —

  21

  125

  -63

  -37

  -48

  350

  -75

  1 The figures comprise WDA spending on land reclamation, investment, and factory building (including site development).

  2 Adjusted using GDP deflator.

  Industrial Support and Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure upon industrial support and development in Clwyd for each of the years since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Expenditure on regional selective assistance and regional development grants in Clwyd for the financial years 1980–81 to 1986–87 is as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  10·0

  1981–82

  17·3

  1982–83

  21·3

  1983–84

  15·4

  1984–85

  26·6

  1985–86

  27·9

  1986–87

  34·2

  Total

  152·7

  Pre-School Playgroup Association
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual funding of the Pre-School Playgroup Movement in Wales for each of the years from and including 1980 up to the most convenient date.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The annual grants paid to the Pre-School Playgroup Association in Wales in respect of its headquarters expenses for the years ending 31 March 1981–87 were as follows:

  £

  to 31 March 1981

  57,000

  31 March 1982

  70,000

  31 March 1983

  84,928

  31 March 1984

  95,699

  31 March 1985

  97,450

  31 March 1986

  101,800

  31 March 1987

  118,500

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total amounts paid to projects in the Alyn and Deeside constituency by the Welsh Development Agency in each year since 1979 in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms based on 1986–87 prices showing the percentages in payments between years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  Maternity Statistics (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many maternity beds there are in Clwyd; what percentage of births of residents in (a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Clwyd take place in (i) Clwyd hospitals and (ii) hospitals in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The figures for 1986 are as follows:

  (a) average number of maternity beds available each day—134·22

  (b) percentage of births of residents in Alyn and Deeside taking place in Clwyd hospitals—38·7 per cent.

  (c) percentage of births of residents in Clwyd taking place in Clwyd hospitals—82·3 per cent.

  The figures at (b) and (c) above include both live and still births. Figures for births in Cheshire hospitals either in respect of Alyn and Deeside residents or of those in Clwyd are not available centrally.

  Waiting Lists (Clwyd)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to reduce waiting lists in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Clwyd health authority was given additional funds of £56,000 in 1986–87 and has been offered some £80,000 in 1987–88 to help tackle the worst problems on hospital waiting lists. In addition, the authority is being encouraged to carry out management action aimed at shortening the time which patients have to wait.

  Schoolchildren (Deafness)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to help those who are deaf or hard of hearing in the schools of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Education Act 1981 imposes duties on local education authorities to make appropriate
  349
  provision for children with special education needs, including those who are deaf or who have impaired hearing.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy not to introduce legislation imposing the community charge on Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have already announced my intention that a complete changeover in Wales from domestic rates to the community charge should take place in 1990.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Stanley
  Equality of opportunity for Northern Ireland civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is the responsibility of an equal opportunities unit within the Department of Finance and Personnel. For the much smaller group of Home civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, responsibility lies with the establishment division in London.

  Taking each of the elements (a) to (f) in the hon. Member's question in turn:

  (a) The equal opportunities unit of the Northern Ireland Civil Service has a staff of seven full-time officers and one part-time officer headed by a grade 7 officer (principal). The Home Civil Service has one equal opportunities officer who is a senior executive officer and spends a small but varying amount of his/her time on equal opportunities duties.

  (b) The other duties carried out by NICS staff of the equal opportunities unit are negligible. The duties of the HCS equal opportunities officer include a range of personnel management policy issues.

  (c) As far as the NICS is concerned, this information is not readily available in the form requested. In addition to the eight staff of the equal opportunities unit many other officers throughout the NICS have a responsibility for equal opportunities as part of other duties and the unit is also supported in its analytical work by other specialist staff within the Department of Finance and Personnel. Since the HCS equal opportunities officer undertakes that role in conjunction with a number of other duties, it is similarly difficult to quantify the budgetary implications.

  (d) Equal opportunities are frequently the subject of consideration at inter-departmental meetings of
  350
  Personnel Officers of the NICS. The HCS equal opportunities officer normally meets his/her counterparts at least once a year.

  (e) The training branch within the Department of Finance and Personnel, in association with the equal opportunities unit, is reviewing its policy on single sex training for women. This has involved the use of a questionnaire together with a number of pilot courses. The departmental training officer and equal opportunities officer in the HCS are ready to promote the use of section 47 where appropriate.

  (f)Formal guidance in respect of part-time working and job sharing arrangements recently agreed with trade unions has been circulated widely throughout the NICS. Each application for parental leave is considered on its merits under the special leave provisions which are widely known throughout the NICS. The Civil Service policy statements on equal opportunities have been circulated to HCS staff. Officers are free to apply for job sharing, part-time working and parental leave and any such applications are considered sympathetically. The HCS equal opportunities officer is also in the process of producing a guide on equal opportunities' policies and practices. This will be issued to all staff.

  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take to follow up the publication of the consultative paper, "Equality of Opportunity in Employment in Northern Ireland.'

  Mr. Tom King
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 July 1987, c. 490–1]The chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights submitted the commission's "Report on Fair Employment" to me on 30 September. It forms part of a major review by the commission of the laws and institutions dealing with religious and political discrimination and equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The report is being published today as a Command Paper (Cm. 237). A study on "Equality and Inequality in Northern Ireland", undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute as part of the commission's review, is also being published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  I am grateful to the commission for the work which has gone into its detailed report, which will be of great value to the Government. We shall be taking the report's recommendations into account in framing our detailed proposals for new legislation on fair employment. We are firmly committed to ensuring equality of opportunity in employment for everyone in Northern Ireland whatever their religious background.

TRANSPORT

  M4 Motorway
  Mr. Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of constructing the M4 between London and Maidenhead Thicket; what was the cost of widening this section of the M4 from two lanes to three; and what estimate was made at the time of construction of the cost of constructing with three lanes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information in the precise form sought is not readily available. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Highway Inquiries
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider appointing two independent assessors to

  351
  sit with an inspector in relation to public inquiries into highway routes, the assessors having relevant experience in the field of conservation and agriculture.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Inspectors nominated by the Lord Chancellor and appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct public inquiries into road scheme proposals are experienced in the general nature of problems faced, including conservation and agriculture. In certain cases, where particular specialist knowledge is required, assessors have been appointed to assist inspectors, and this practice will continue.

  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will propose changes in the existing regulations so that in his decision in relation to inquiries affecting highway routes and related matters, the statement giving the inspector's decision should be accompanied by the reasons of the inspector.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The regulations governing highways inquiries procedures are the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1976 (S.I. 1976 No. 721).

  Under these rules the Secretary of State is required to notify objectors and others of his decision and the reasons for it. The rules also require the inspector to report to the Secretary of State his conclusions and recommendations, if any, or his reasons for not making any recommendations. In practice, the inspector's conclusions amount to the reasons for his recommendations.

  There are no plans to amend these rules.

  If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will write to me.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department proposes to charge two fees for subject access by members of the public: £3·50 for inquiries of the driving licence record and £10 for other inquiries. There is no current intention to charge the Department's own staff seeking access to personal data held about them as employees.

  There are eight register entries. Each covers a number of separate systems. In the unlikely event of a data subject wishing to have access to all entries, the total cost would be £73·50.

  Buses
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the number of bus routes (a) registered and (b) deregistered between 26 October 1986 and 30 September 1987.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of services registered between 1 November 1986 and 30 September 1987 was 4,257 and the number deregistered 3,200.

  Taxis
  Mr. Morley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many taxi registration plates have been issued since the Transport Act 1986 and deregulation.
  352
  Mr. David Mitchell
  On the latest figures available it is estimated that between mid-1985 and mid-1986, 1,900 new taxi licences were issued by licensing authorities in England and Wales (excluding London).

  Airports
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the procedures adopted by the Civil Aviation Authority relating to the licensing of new passenger airports.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. The licensing of airports is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the necessary technical competence in such matters.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the arrangements made by the Civil Aviation Authority concerning emergency procedures at London City airport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The approval of emergency procedures is wholly a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority in conjunction with aerodrome managers. The authority satisfied itself on these procedures before issuing the aerodrome licence.

  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the emergency orders relating to emergency procedures at London City airport, stating which of the non-airport local emergency services have assented to its provisions.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Copies of emergency procedure instructions have been sent by the airport management to the local emergency services concerned, who were consulted in drawing them up. Provision of a copy for the Library is a matter for the discretion of the airport managers. I have drawn their attention to the hon. Member's request.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates announcing an increase in the salaries due to the board members of London Regional Transport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 October, at columns 849–50. The salaries of the board members of London Regional Transport are still under review.

  Hydraulic Fluid
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether there are any plans to introduce quality checks on hydraulic fluid being sold to motorists and car manufacturers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Hydraulic fluid is produced in accordance with specific international standards and is sold to car manufacturers and motorists in sealed containers. We have no reason to suspect the quality of brake fluid sold in Britain. There are no plans to introduce quality checks.

  Knaresborough and Harrogate (Bypass)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out his reasons for ordering a further public inquiry into the proposals for the southern bypass of Knaresborough and Harrogate; and if he will give details of such evidence as he received.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The orders for the bypass require confirmation by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State cannot decide whether or not to confirm orders unless he is fully informed as a result of a public inquiry. In this case he received 79 representations after the inquiry closed, including one from the Nature Conservancy Council. These representations raised points material to the decision which the Secretary of State was to make.

  He has decided that the inquiry should be reopened. If he were to make a decision without being fully informed on the points in question, he would not be properly discharging his statutory functions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Select Committees (Staff)
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will detail the number of staff, and their grades, who are employed to staff the House's Select Committees; and if he will detail the work they have been involved in, Committee by Committee, since the middle of May, and the salary costs of their staffs since that date.

  Mr. Beith
  The following staff in the Department of the Clerk of the House are currently wholly or mainly employed in connection with the work of select committees:

  Number

  Clerk of Committees (Grade 2)

  1

  Principal Clerks (Grade 3)

  3

  Deputy Principal Clerks (Grade 5)

  11

  Senior Clerks (Grade 7)

  12

  Assistant Clerks (AT/HEO (D))

  7

  Senior Executive Officers

  4

  Higher Executive Officers

  10

  Specialist Assistants

  3

  Chief Office Clerks

  1

  Senior Office Clerks

  6

  Senior General Assistant/General Assistants

  6

  Personal Secretaries (Grade 4)

  20

  The particular duties carried out by the staff of the House are the responsibility of the heads of the House Departments concerned. There are currently 13 Select Committees in existence; however, staff will not be fully deployed until the departmentally-related Committees have been set up.

  Total salaries, at the mean of the salary scale for the grades of those listed above, from 1 June to 31 October (excluding night allowances) would amount to £544,727. Inner London weighting has been included, but allowances and proficiency payments have not. The salary cost does not include provision for superannuation or employer national insurance, which together add 30 per cent. to the above figure. It is not practicable to break down this figure Committee by Committee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Northern Region
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit the northern region.

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

  Warrington
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Warrington.

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

  Fraud
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Prime Minister if she will estimate the current level of fraud at the expense of the European Economic Community (i) in Britain and (ii) in all the countries in the EEC; and what proposals she has to reduce the level of fraud.

  The Prime Minister
  Reliable estimates of fraud in the Community are not available.

  The United Kingdom has taken the lead in pressing for more effective Community action against all financial irregularities. Under our presidency we secured agreement on a revised food aid regulation to tighten control in this sector. When the results of a Commission review into all aspects of Community financial control is completed we shall press for such further measures as may be necessary.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the trend on employment in the north-west.

  The Prime Minister
  The latest estimate for the civilian employed labour force (that is employees in employment plus the self-employed) in the north-west is 2,545,000 in June this year. This compares with 2,530,000 in June 1986.

  To help in the process of job creation, the north-west attracts very high levels of Government assistance. Many parts have assisted area status and benefit under the urban programme. Two city action teams, two urban development corporations and three inner city task forces operate there and there are three enterprise zones.

  The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission operate over 30 employment, enterprise and training measures described in the "Action for Jobs" booklet, all of which are available in the northwest. For example, around 63,000 in the north-west are training under YTS and around 35,000 are currently benefiting from the community programme.

  Parliamentary Answers (Cost)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister what is the sum above which an answer to a parliamentary question is considered to represent disproportionate cost.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for Ministers to decide whether to decline to answer a question on grounds of disproportionate cost. Any question likely to cost more than £200 is referred to the responsible Minister before significant resources are committed.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister how many questions she has refused to answer since 1979 on the grounds of disproportionate cost.
  355
  The Prime Minister
  This information can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  USA (Official Duties)
  Mr. Tony
  Banks asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 847, if she will give details of the official duties she undertook in the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  My visit to the United States was a private one, during which I continued in the normal way to fulfil my duties as Prime Minister.

  Paintings (10 Downing Street)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 22 October, Official Report, columns 845–46, if she will give such details of the paintings, engravings and photographs (a) removed and (b) hung in 10 Downing street as are available.

  The Prime Minister
  Excluding personal possessions, the paintings, reproductions (engravings or otherwise) and photographs currently at 10 Downing street are as follows:

  Prints—Reproductions of Prime Ministers—Prints and photos on grand staircase

  Reproduction—Milsuoki Tosa—Quails and flowers

  Reproduction—Pissarro—View from Louveciennes

  Reproduction—Helder—Eynsford

  Reproduction—Klee Paul—Fish magic

  Reproduction—Turner (Michael)—Out with the rolls

  Photograph—Anon—Largs, Baron Kelvin of

  Reproduction—Monet Claude—Venice

  Reproduction—Hobbema—Avenue of trees

  Reproduction—Anon—Prospect of the city of London (facsimile of engraving)

  Reproduction—Van Gogh—Basket of fruit with blue gloves

  Reproduction—Monet—Le Seine Bougival

  Reproduction—Utrillo—Rue de village

  Reproduction—Pissarro—Seine at Marly

  Reproduction—Jean Baptiste Corot—St. Nicholas-lez-Arras

  Reproduction—Turner—Calais Sands

  Reproduction—Canaletto—Eton College

  Reproduction—Canaletto—City of London from Somerset House

  Photograph—Photo of copy of 17 Century painting—Downing, Sir George (Copyist: R. Pratt)

  Reproduction—Turner J. M. W.—Grand canal Venice

  Reproduction—Canaletto—Regatta

  Painting—Beer Richard—Oxford: Oriel college 30/100

  Painting—Beer Richard—Oxford: Magdalen college A/P

  Print—Danckerts Hendrik—Whitehall from St. James's park circa. 1675

  Painting—Lambert George—St. James's park from the terrace of 10 Downing street

  Painting—Salisbury Frank O—Churchill, Sir Winston (1874–1965) Prime Minister

  Painting—Loo Jean Baptiste Van—Orford, Sir Robert Walpole, Earl (1676–1745) Prime Minister.

  Painting—Stuart Gilbert—Siddons, Sarah (1755–1831) Actress circa 1785.

  Painting—Gainsborough Thomas—Garrick, David (1717–79) Actor.

  Painting—Stuart Gilbert—West, Benjamin (1738–1820) History Painter.

  Painting—Phillips Thomas—Chantrey, Sir Francis (1781–1841) Sculptor.

  Painting—Organ Bryan—Macmillan, Harold (B. 1894) Prime Minister.

  Painting—Chapman John—Horseguards Parade circa 1760.

  Painting—Loo Jean Baptiste Van—Orford, Sir Robert Walpole, Earl (1676–1745) Prime Minister.

  Painting—Hoare William—Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl (1708–78) Prime Minister.

  356

  Print—Boys Thomas Shotter—Westminster from Waterloo Bridge.

  Print—Boys Thomas Shotter—The Club Houses and Pall Mall.

  Painting—Velde William Van De II—Dutch Men-of-War and small vessels in a calm.

  Painting—Greenwood Ernest—Downland Path, Hollingbourne 1977.

  Painting—Troubetskoy Pierre—Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–98) Prime Minister.

  Print—Gilbert John—The Aberdeen Cabinet considering Crimea Expedition.

  Print—Gales Henry—The Derby Cabinet of 1867

  Painting—Watts George Frederick—Terry, Dame Alice Ellen (1847–1928) Actress.

  Painting—West Benjamin—Leeds, Francis Osborne, 5th Duke of (1751–99).

  Painting—Lawrence Thomas—Moore, Sir Graham (1764–1843) Admiral.

  Painting—Landseer Edwin—Melbourne, William Lamb 2nd Viscount (1779–1848) Prime Minister 1836.

  Painting—Watts George Frederick—Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–98) Prime Minister 1859.

  Print—Tombleson William—Windsor Castle.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Lawrence Jewry 1970 35/75.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Augustine, Watling Street 1970 35/75.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Martin, Ludgate 1970 35/75.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Bride's Fleet Street 1970 35/75.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Benet, Paul's Wharf 1970 35/75.

  Print—Beer Richard—St. Magnus the Martyr 1970 35–75.

  Print—Collins James—North Prospect of Westminster Abbey.

  Painting—Turner William (of Oxford)—A Watermill.

  Print—Robbie Enid—Westminster circa 1972 4/5 1974.

  Print—Hawkins George Junior—Tower of the Grey Friars.

  Painting—Gainsborough Thomas—Vestris, Marie Auguste.

  Painting—Luny Thomas—River Scene.

  Painting—Maris Jacobus H.—A Beach (Seashore and Boats).

  Painting—Gainsborough Thomas—Marlborough, A Duke of.

  Print—Anon 19 century (Waterworks London Bridge)—Waterworks at London Bridge.

  Print—Orr Chris—The Ruskin Portfolio: Ruskin's Room 1972.

  Print—Moss William—Somerset House Internal View circa 1777.

  Print—King Cecil—Berlin Suite IV 22/75 1970.

  Print—King Cecil—Berlin Suite VI 22/75 1970.

  Print—Faber Johan Senior—Gasparus, Johannes: Probably J. B. Gasparus (16207–1691).

  Painting—Burne-Jones, Edward Coley—Kipling, Rudyard (1865–1936) Writer 1899.

  Print—Birley Oswald—Baldwin, Stanley, 1st Earl (1867–1947) Prime Minister.

  Print—Anon French 18 century (Falkland)—Map of Bay and Port to East of Falkland Islands.

  Print—Seeman Enoch—Newton, Sir Issac (1642–1727) Scientist.

  Print—Beer Richard—Oxford: St. John's College A/P.

  Print—Beer Richard—Oxford: Worcester College 76/100.

  Print—Beer Richard—Oxford: Queen's College 48/100.

  Painting—Kneller Godfrey—Lexington, Lady Margaret (1673–1703).

  Painting—Cox Marian Roalfe—Young man in open neck shirt.

  Painting—Cox Marian Roalfe—Man in waistcoat.

  Print—Rowlandson T. and Pugin A. C.—St. Paul's Cathedral

  Print—Rowlandson T. and Pugin A. C.—Westminster Abbey

  Print—Marlow William—View near Blackfriars bridge

  Print—Marlow William—View near Westminster bridge

  Print—Buck S. N.—Worcester: S. W. Prospect

  Print—Tillemans Peter—Town of Stanford from Parsons cross

  Print—Buck S. N.—Canterbury: S. W. Prospect

  Painting—Scanlan Robert Richard—Peel, Sir Robert (1788–1850) Prime Minister

  357

  Painting—Romney George—Matthews, Dr. John 1786

  Painting—Romney George—Fane, the hon. Thomas (1760–1807) MP

  Painting—Romney George—Matthews, Mrs. John (Elizabeth Ellis) 1786

  Painting—Romney George—Westmoreland, John Fane, Lord Burghersh, 10th Earl of

  Painting—Abbott Lemuel Francis—Nelson, Horatio Nelson, First Viscount (1758–1805)

  Painting—Ward James—Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, First Duke (1769–1852) 1829

  Painting—Marlow William—A view of St. Pauls and Blackfriars bridge

  Painting—Orchardson William Q—Four generations: Queen Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Duke of Windsor

  Painting—Sickert Walter Richard—Belvedere, Bath Circa 1917

  Painting—Gilman Harold John Wilde—Edwardian interior

  Painting—Gilman Harold John Wilde—Interior with Nursemaid

  Painting—Niemann Edmund John—Nottingham landscape

  Painting—Stark James—Landscape: A Country road

  Painting—Buchanan George F.—Derwentwater Circa 1850

  Painting—Buchanan George F.—Derwentwater Circa 1850

  Painting—Wilkinson Norman—The "Winston Churchill" goes to sea, 1970

  Painting—Fergusson David—Summer Landscape 1963

  Painting—Turner William (of Oxford)—Skating

  Print—Houbraken Jacobus—Sunderland, Charles Spencer, Third Earl of (1674–1722)

  Print—Reynolds Joshua—Pulteney, William, Earl of Bath (1684–1764)

  Print—Kneller Godfrey—Montagu, Charles Earl of Halifax (1661–1715)

  Print—Anon 18th Century (Duke of Shrewsbury)—Shrewsbury, Charles Talbot, First Duke of (1660–1718)

  Print—Kneller Godfrey—Carlisle, Charles Howard, Third Earl of (1669–1738)

  Print—Kneller Godfrey—Oxford, Robert Harley, First Earl of (1661–1724) Politician

  Painting—Orpen William—Lloyd George, David, First Earl (1863–1945) 1927

  Print—Constable John—Dedham vale

  Print—Constable John—Salisbury cathedral

  Print—Constable John—The lock

  Print—Constable John—The cornfield

  Print—Constable John—The young waltonians

  Painting—Laszlo Philip a de—Balfour, Arthur J. Balfour, First Earl of (1848–1930) Prime Minister

  Print—Constable John—A heath

  Print—Constable John—Old sarum

  Painting—Lawrence Thomas—Canning, George (1770–1827) Prime Minister

  Painting—Cappelle Jan Van de—Coast scene with passengers disembarking

  Painting—Constable J. Imitator of—A landscape

  Painting—O'Connor James Arthur—Landscape

  Painting—Nasmyth Patrick—Landscape with haystack

  Painting—Norwich School—Landscape with cottage and figures

  Painting—Constable John—A water mill

  Painting—Nasmyth Patrick—Landscape with boy on horseback

  Painting—O'Connor James Arthur—The devil's glen, county Wicklow 1828

  Painting—Romney George—Pitt, William (1759–1806) Prime Minister

  Painting—Aikman William—Kent, William (1685–1748) architect

  Painting—Dobson William—Two cavaliers

  Painting—Reynolds Joshua—Fawcett, Sir William (1728–1804) general and privy counsellor

  Painting—Riley John—Boyle, Robert (1627–91) chemist and natural philosopher

  Painting—Lawrence Thomas—Bloomfield, John A. D. Second Baron (1802–79) diplomat

  Painting—Velde Willem Van De II—Dutch Man-of-War
  358
  and other vessels. Strong breeze

  Painting—Anon 18 century Joseph Priestley—Priestley, Joseph (1733–1804), Theologian and Scientist

  Painting—Hogarth William—Schomberg, Sir Alexander (1720–1804) Navy Captain

  Painting—Linnell John—Davy, Sir Humphry (1778–1829), Scientist

  Painting—Northcote James—Graves, Sir Thomas (1747–1814), Admiral 1801

  Painting—Shackleton John—George 11 (1683–1760) Reigned 1727–60

  Painting—Scott Samuel—View of Horseguards circa 1760

  Print—Highmore Anthony—The East Front of Kensington Palace

  Print—Highmore Anthony—The South Front of Kensington Palace

  Print—Nash Joseph—Opening of London Bridge, I st August 1831

  Print—Wickes Charles—St. Peter's, Oundle, Northants

  Print—Turner William (of Oxford)—Abingdon from the Thames Navigation

  Painting—Nasmyth Patrick—The Angler's Nook

  Print—Westall William—Staines Bridge

  Print—Turner William (of Oxford)—Donnington Castle

  Print—Farington Joseph—Truro

  Print—Farington Joseph—Poulton Bridge and Launceston

  Print—Farington Joseph—North View of Polperro

  Painting—Piper John—Covehithe Church 1983

  Painting—Corot J. B. C.—Cows Standing in a Marsh

  Painting—Lavery John—Spencer-Churchill, Clementine (1885–1977) and Sarah

  Painting—Churchill Winston Spencer—Seascape

  Painting—Sherlock Marjorie—Liverpool Street Station 1917

  Painting—Fuger Friedrich Heinrich—Nelson, Horatio Nelson, Viscount (1758–1805) Vice-Admiral

  Painting—Gainsborough Thomas—Hilly Landscape

  Print—Beer Richard—Oxford: Wadham College 55/100

  Print—Malton Thomas Jnr—Lothbury Court, Bank

  Print—Jameson Susan E.—Castle Rigg II 1977 9/100

  Print—Kip Jan—Dumbleton, Seat of Sir Richard Cocks Baronet

  Print—Disbrey Stephen—Landmark 29/50 1976

  Print—Disbrey Stephen—Loch 18/46 1976

  Print—Piranesi Giov. Battista—Carcere, Plate IX No. 357

  Print—Anon circa 1820 Highgate Archway—Highgate Archway from Turnpike Gate at Holloway

  Print—Knyff Leonard—Badminton, Seat of Prince Henry, Duke of Beaufort

  Print—Dyck Anthony Van—Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658), Lord Protector

  Painting—Applebee Leonard—The Path Dardenne

  Print—Salt Henry—The Town of Abha in Abyssinia

  Painting—Dobson William—Man in Buff Jerkin with Cuirass circa 1645

  Print—Westall William—Oxford from Iffley

  Print—Westall William—Oxford from the South West

  Print—Buck S. and N.—Leicester: South Prospect

  Print—Bawden Edward—Audley End House 1973 97'150

  Print—Hofland Thomas C.—South East view of Bolton Priory No. 6

  Print—Werff Adriaen van der—Mary I of England

  Print—Werff Adriaen van der—Philip II of Spain

  Print—Buck S & N—Norwich: South East Prospect

  Print—Anon 17 C Engr(Chas II)—Statue of Charles II (1630–1685) reigned 1630–85

  Print—Buck S & N—Ely: South East Prospect

  Print—Nash Joseph—Drawing Room at Broughton Castle Oxford, 1845

  Print—Nash Joseph—Hall, Penshurst, Kent

  Painting—Milner Donald Ewart—Across the Stour

  Print—Northcote James—Pius VI Blessing British Officers

  Print—Buck S & N—Hereford: North East Prospect

  Painting—Salisbury Frank D—Stanmore, Arthur Hamilton Gordon, 1 Baron (1829–1912)

  Print—Robertson Archibald—View of the East Front of the Bridge at Veja

  Print—Robertson George—Fort William Estate, Jamaica showing Roaring River

  Print—Buck S.& N.—Salisbury: North East prospect

  359

  Print—Pockock Nicholas—Engagement of Frigate Java and Constitution

  Print—Eastlake Charles Lock—Napoleon Buonaparte (1769–1821) Emperor

  Print—Weisz Victor ("Vicky")—Perhaps we should have Second Thoughts

  Print—Buck S & N—Warwick: South East Prospect

  Print—Rushbury Henry George—Adelaide House

  Print—Frith William Powell—Life at the Seaside, Ramsgate 1854

  Print—Rushbury Henry George—St. Olave's, Tooley Street 1927

  Painting—Salisbury Frank O.—Churchill, Sir Winston (1874–1965–) Prime Minister 1943

  Print—Boydell John—View of Lord Duncannon's House, Kent

  Print—Schnebbelie Robert B.—North View of the Interior of Furnival Inn

  Print—Boydell John—View of the Treasury and Canal in St. James's Park

  Painting—Spear Ruskin—Low tide

  Print—Maurer John—Perspective view of Whitehall and Whitehall Gate C.I753

  Print—Alexander William—South West View of Thorney Abbey Church

  Print—Burgess William—Camp of the 93rd Highlanders, Western Heights, Dover

  Print—Burgess William—A Field Day of the Highland Brigade, Dover

  Print—Burgess William—Camp of the 41st Regiment, Dover Heights

  Print—Burgess William—Camps of the 44th and 49th Regiments, Dover

  Print—Mornewick Henry Claude—50th Queen's Own Regiment 1850

  Print—Martens Henry—14th King's Light Dragoons

  Print—Martens Henry—2nd Royal North Dragoons, 1846

  Print—Campion George Bryant—Review at the Moat park of East and West Kent Yeomanry

  Print—Farington Joseph—Penryn

  Print—Farington Joseph—Matlock Church

  Print—Havell Robert—Horseguards and Melbourne House

  Print—Pugin Augustus Charles—New Palace, St. James's Park

  Print—Marchant J.—West Front of the Horse Guards

  Painting—Lowry Laurence Stephen—Lancashire Fair: Good Friday, Daisy Nook 1946

  Print—Marchant J.—The New Extended Front at Buckingham Palace

  Print—Barry Charles—The New Treasury Offices Whitehall

  Print—Boys Thomas Shotter—Guildhall

  Print—Kip Jan—The Tower of London

  Print—Daniell William—Black Marble Quarry near Red Wharf Bay, Anglesey

  Print—Bawden Edward—The Guildhall A/P

  Painting—Gore Frederick—Puig Major from Forna Luxh, near Soller, Majorca

  Print—Bicat Andre—Aubergines 14/100

  Painting—Elwyn John—Savernake Encounter, 1965

  Print—Kay Bernard—Cathedral School, Hereford (final state proof)

  Print—Turner William (of Oxford)—Newbury from Speen Hill

  Painting—Roussel Theodore Casimir—Rochester Harbour: a September Afternoon

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Honister Pass

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Old Man of Hoy

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Snow Mountains

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Theedmir Hill

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Loch Quoich

  Photograph—Wakefield, Paul—Chichester Harbour

  Hospitality (10 Downing Street)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 845, if she will provide such details of the number of Conservative
  360
  right hon. and hon. Members who have received hospitality in 10 Downing street as are readily available for any convenient recent period.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 January 1987, 71 Conservative right hon. and hon. Members have attended lunches (including working lunches), dinners (including working dinners) and receptions in 10 Downing street.

  South Africa
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Prime Minister if she will arrange for publication in the Official Report in a suitable format of all the information which she used to support her remarks at the recent Commonwealth Conference about the growth of trading links between each other Commonwealth country and the Republic of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures on which I drew at Vancouver are available from published sources, including those relating to trade between Canada and South Africa.

  Privatised Companies (Ex-Ministers)
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make it a condition of acceptance of ministerial office that an individual who subsequently leaves office will not undertake work as a consultant to or a director of a company privatised from public ownership during the time the Minister was in office.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Engagements
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Stern
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 October.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I attended the memorial service for Lord Soames at Westminster Abbey. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Inner London Weighting
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which education authorities in London pay their teachers inner London weighting; and what criteria are used in determining such authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  London allowances at the inner area rate are paid to primary and secondary school teachers
  361
  who serve in the area of the Inner London education authority, and of the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Merton, and Newham. The arrangements were agreed by the Burnham committee and remain unchanged. My right hon. Friend has invited the interim advisory committee to examine and report to him on whether there should be any change in London area allowances.

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his decision regarding the future of the British Geological Survey, following the report of Sir Clifford Butler, a copy of which he has received.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to make a statement on Sir Clifford Butler's report on geological surveying.

  Mr. Jackson
  The recommendations of the report of the study group into geological surveying, chaired by Sir Clifford Butler, that fall to be considered by Government are being discussed with the Departments concerned. My right hon. Friend will make a statement when these consultations have been completed.

  School Meals
  Mr. Pendry
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give, for each education authority in England and Wales the number of children who take school meals who are entitled to free school meals by reason of (a) their family entitled to family income supplement or supplementary benefit and (b) the discretionary power of the local authority to extend free meal provision.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information requested is included in the October 1986 school meals census, copies of which are available in the Library.

  CERN
  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding his policy towards continued British membership of CERN.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to make a statement on United Kingdom's participation in CERN.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 28 October.

  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Sheffield university about the implications for the university of continued United Kingdom membership of CERN; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Mr. Michie) relaying the views of staff in the department of physics at the University of Sheffield.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he estimates as being the additional cost likely to be incurred by local education authorities by the proposed legislation on the core curriculum. grant-maintained schools, increased financial responsibility to head teachers and open enrolment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All these proposals are designed to give local authorities and schools the opportunity to achieve better value for the resources provided for education. Implementation of the proposals will involve some redirection of funds; any particular requirements which emerge as LEAs and governing bodies progressively put them into practice will fall to be considered in the annual public expenditure discussions.

  School Places
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many surplus secondary school places there are in England and Wales; and if he will give a breakdown by individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is estimated that in January 1987 there were approximately 720,000 surplus secondary school places in England. The Department does not collect information about the position in Wales or in individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated total cost of providing surplus secondary school places.

  Mr. Dunn
  The premises-related costs of retaining a surplus secondary place are estimated at £200 a year. There is also an additional but unquantified teaching cost.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many surplus primary school places there are in England and Wales; and if he will give a breakdown by individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is estimated that in January 1987 there were approximately 710,000 surplus primary school places in England. The Department does not collect information about the position in Wales or in individual local education authorities.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated total cost of providing surplus primary school places.

  Mr. Dunn
  The premises-related costs of retaining a surplus primary place are estimated at £120 a year. There is also an additional but unquantified teaching cost.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he measures the pupil capacity of secondary schools.

  Mr. Dunn
  I shall write to my hon. Friend to explain how the stock of school places was assessed for the purpose of setting national targets for the removal of surplus places.

  Teachers (Salaries and Conditions)
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish a consultation document on the future machinery for the negotiation of teachers' salaries and conditions.
  364
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend laid before Parliament on 27 October a Green Paper entitled "Teachers' Pay and Conditions: A Consultative Document".

  Education Authority Staff
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many (a) teachers and (b) non-teaching staff, whole-time equivalent, are employed by each local educational authority in England at the latest convenient date.

  Teaching and non-leaching staff-—First half 1987

  Teaching Staff Full-time equivalent

  Non-teaching Staff Number

  Local Education Authority

  Schools

  Further education

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Barking

  1,422

  856

  2,278

  650

  1,568

  2,218

  Barnet

  2,633

  380

  3,013

  1,007

  2,453

  3,460

  Bexlcy

  1,828

  270

  2,098

  493

  1,939

  2,432

  Brent

  2,629

  644

  3,274

  1,252

  2,417

  3,669

  Bromley

  2,117

  380

  2,497

  562

  1,939

  2,501

  Croydon

  2,644

  551

  3,195

  780

  2,780

  3,560

  Ealing

  2,378

  702

  3,080

  994

  2,020

  3,014

  Enfield

  2,367

  961

  3,328

  617

  1,963

  2,580

  Haringey

  2,056

  478

  2,534

  1,121

  2,358

  3,479

  Harrow

  1,616

  377

  1,994

  491

  1,544

  2,035

  Havering

  2,202

  291

  2,493

  621

  1,815

  2,436

  Hillingdon

  1,863

  183

  2,046

  640

  2,103

  2,743

  Hounslow

  2,025

  404

  2,429

  618

  1,840

  2,458

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,083

  843

  1,926

  874

  1,156

  2,030

  Merton

  1,314

  164

  1,478

  346

  636

  982

  Newham

  2,405

  364

  2,769

  1,147

  1,989

  3,136

  Redbridge

  1,783

  214

  1,998

  453

  1,616

  2,069

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  997

  389

  1,367

  319

  976

  1,295

  Sutton

  1,245

  217

  1,461

  444

  1,316

  1,770

  Waltham Forest

  2,390

  336

  2,727

  862

  2,466

  3,328

  Inner London

  22,180

  9,654

  31,834

  19,676

  29,481

  49,157

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  120

  37

  157

  Birmingham

  10,319

  2,060

  12,379

  4,155

  9,764

  13,919

  Coventry

  3,107

  1,197

  4,305

  2,031

  4,327

  6,358

  Dudley

  2,764

  585

  3,349

  867

  2,665

  3,532

  Sandwell

  3,113

  655

  3,768

  1,252

  3,183

  4,435

  Solihull

  1,960

  314

  2,274

  431

  1,875

  2,306

  Walsall

  3,054

  633

  3,687

  1,121

  3,998

  5,119

  Wolverhampton

  2,814

  1,130

  3,944

  1,628

  2,626

  4,254

  Knowsley

  1,864

  196

  2,060

  789

  2,140

  2,929

  Liverpool

  4,933

  1,708

  6,641

  2,814

  6,185

  8,999

  St. Helens

  1,936

  345

  2,281

  732

  2,211

  2,943

  Sefton

  2,608

  412

  3,019

  1,067

  2,471

  3,538

  Wirral

  3,017

  544

  3,561

  829

  3,679

  4,508

  Bolton

  2,575

  650

  3,225

  1,222

  2,872

  4,094

  Bury

  1,634

  251

  1,885

  524

  1,779

  2,303

  Manchester

  4,981

  2,317

  7,298

  4,193

  6,891

  11,084

  Oldham

  2,253

  330

  2,582

  876

  2,041

  2,917

  Rochdale

  2,267

  237

  2,504

  966

  2,200

  3,166

  Salford

  2,316

  577

  2,893

  1,095

  2,575

  3,670

  Stockport

  2,554

  492

  3,046

  929

  2,316

  3,245

  Tameside

  2,067

  260

  2,327

  862

  2,024

  2,886

  Trafford

  1,669

  355

  2,024

  538

  1,797

  2,335

  Wigan

  3,315

  680

  3,995

  1,103

  3,076

  4,179

  Barnsley

  2,106

  298

  2,404

  811

  2,412

  3,223

  Doncaster

  2,852

  413

  3,265

  1,139

  3,592

  4,731

  Rotherham

  2,597

  444

  3,040

  772

  2,621

  3,393

  Sheffield

  5,097

  1,884

  6,981

  2,814

  6,754

  9,568

  Bradford

  5,191

  906

  6,097

  2,103

  6,075

  8,178

  Calderdale

  1,961

  280

  2,240

  650

  1,861

  2,511

  Kirklees

  3,797

  1,298

  5,095

  1,771

  5,080

  6,851

  Leeds

  6,982

  1,908

  8,890

  3,103

  7,119

  10,222

  Wakefield

  3,041

  629

  3,669

  1,263

  3,529

  4,792

  Gateshead

  1,979

  224

  2,204

  868

  1,651

  2,519

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,789

  1,232

  4,021

  2,282

  3,281

  5,563

  North Tyneside

  2,171

  216

  2,387

  926

  1,787

  2,713

  South Tyneside

  1,571

  412

  1,982

  770

  1,698

  2,468

  Sunderland

  2,995

  753

  3,748

  1,663

  3,169

  4,832

  Isles of Scilly

  25

  0

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  7,670

  2,209

  9,880

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  4,951

  1,064

  6,015

  —

  —

  —

  366
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The table shows 1987 numbers in full-time equivalent terms and full-time and part-time non-teaching staff. Non-teaching staff numbers are riot available for individual non-metropolitan counties, nor in full-time equivalent terms for any individual local education authority.
  367

  Teaching Staff Full-time equivalent

  Non-leaching Staff Number

  Local Education Authority

  Schools

  Further education

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Berkshire

  6,312

  1,555

  7,867

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  5,131

  986

  6,117

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  5,429

  1,177

  6,607

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  8,618

  1,492

  10,110

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  5,867

  1,465

  7,338

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  3,717

  619

  4,336

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  4,553

  862

  5,415

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  8,542

  1,348

  9,890

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  7,458

  2,134

  9,593

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  4,569

  1,147

  5,716

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  5,261

  939

  6,200

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  4,730

  1,344

  6,074

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  12,285

  2,198

  14,483

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  4,377

  699

  5,076

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  12,141

  3,393

  15,533

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,494

  1,227

  6,721

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  8,999

  2,011

  11,010

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  8,209

  1,649

  —

  —

  —

  —.

  Isle of Wight

  993

  190

  1,183

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  12,083

  2046

  14,128

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  12,346

  3,199

  15,545

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  8,046

  2,195

  10,241

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  4,668

  833

  5,501

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  5,848

  907

  6,755

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  3,702

  1,054

  6,756

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  5,541

  978

  6,519

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  2,829

  208

  3,037

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  9,125

  2,443

  11,568

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  4,431

  1,272

  5,704

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  3,664

  558

  4,221

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  3,449

  887

  4,336

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  9,131

  2,106

  11,237

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  5,066

  862

  5,928

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  7,128

  1,461

  8,589

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  4,288

  1,090

  5,378

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  5,164

  819

  5,983

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  4,276

  976

  5,252

  —

  —

  —

  Non-Metropolitan Counties

  248,122

  53,602

  301,724

  89,462

  280,272

  369,734

  Total England

  421,530

  99,085

  520,616

  174,508

  470,018

  644,526

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Attorney-General what is (a) the proportion of working time allocated to the Lord Chancellor's 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 equal opportunities officers from other Government Departments each year, and (e) the guidelines issued to departmental training officers and departmental equal opportunities officers to promote the use of section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act; and what action has been taken to facilitate job share, part-time working and parental leave.

  The Attorney-General
  (a) The Lord Chancellor's departmental equal opportunities officer spends about 50 per cent. of his time on these duties. Two and a half other members of staff are also fully engaged on them;

  (b) He also deals with employment and industrial relations matters;
  368
  (c) No specific budget is allocated for equal opportunities work; The cost is subsumed in other departmental budgets and could be quantified only at disproportionate cost;

  (d) The equal opportunities officer meets other equal opportunities officers, formally and informally, several times a year;

  (e) Central guidance on equal opportunities matters has been issued to departmental training officers and departmental equal opportunities officers. The Department has run courses for women middle managers and nominates women for similar courses. A domestic absence scheme has recently been established; similar agreements in relation to job sharing and part-time working are currently being discussed with the departmental trade union side.

  Marconi
  Mr. Soames
  asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement as to the nature of inquiries into Marconi by the Ministry of Defence police.

  The Attorney-General
  The inquiries by the Ministry of Defence police relate to allegations of fraud in connection with Ministry of Defence contracts with Marconi.

  Personation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Attorney-General when was the last occasion the Director of Public Prosecutions ordered the prosecution of an individual for falsely claiming to be a police officer.

  The Attorney-General
  No separate records are kept by the Crown Prosecution Service of prosecutions brought under section 52 of the Police Act 1964. It would not therefore be possible to give an accurate answer to the hon. Member's question for the period since the inception of the Crown Prosecution Service in October 1986. Prior to that date the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978 did not require chief officers of police to report cases of personating a police officer to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the operation of the small claims procedure in the county court in England and Wales; and what plans the Government have for amendment of the procedure.

  The Attorney-General
  A factual study of the small claims procedure, carried out as part of the Lord Chancellor's civil justice review, indicates that the procedure is generally working well and that there is a high level of satisfaction among those who have used it. Any recommendations for reform will be contained in a report of the review as a whole which is due to be put before the Lord Chancellor in early 1988.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Attorney-General how many cases, for the most recent five years for which figures are available, were dealt with under the small claims procedure in the county courts of England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The numbers of arbitration cases heard under the small claims procedure in county courts in the years 1982 to 1986 are shown in the table.

  Number of arbitration cases heard under the small claims procedure in county courts in England and Wales, 1982–86

  Year

  Number

  1982

  31,609

  1983

  39,266

  1984

  43,576

  1985

  44,652

  1986

  44,670

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Attorney-General if he will estimate the additional cost to public funds in operating the small claims procedure in the county court in England and Wales if disputes currently referred to outside arbitration in accordance with compulsory arbitration clauses in contracts with consumers were instead, at the option of the consumer, made subject to disposal through the county court.

  The Attorney-General
  No accurate information is available as to the number of disputes currently referred to outside arbitration of the number which falls within the limits of the small claims procedure. It is therefore not possible to estimate the possible additional cost to public funds of handling these cases in the county courts.

ENERGY

  Coal
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the price of coal on the world market; and how this compares with the price charged by British Coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Ranges of spot prices for steam coal at Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp are published regularly in "Coal Week International". The prices paid by the CEGB for its coal are a commercial matter for the board.

  Bradwell
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the Central Electricity Generating Board to respond to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's report requiring the integrity of the pressure circuits and the direct examination of components in inaccessible and highly radioactive areas of the reactor at Bradwell power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised by the CEGB that the agreed programme of further work is under way and is on schedule to meet the time scales set by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Power Stations (Low-grade Heat)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated annual value of the low-grade heat which remains in water emerging from steam condensers in coal and nuclear power stations and which is unable to be put to economic use.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Low grade heat emerging in water is equivalent to some 50 per cent. of the calorific value of fuel burnt in power stations. Any economic uses for such heat are a matter for the CEGB.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My Department will not charge employees or ex-employees for subject access under the Act; other persons will be charged £8 per inquiry.

  My Department has seven entries in the Data Protection Register covering 21 standard purposes.

  In the unlikely event of other persons seeking access to personal data held under all register entries, the total cost would be £56.

  Electricity
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether, in the event of privatisation of the national electricity system, he will consider the establishment of a public authority with sufficient powers and resources to monitor and ultimately decide about the standards, quality of supply and cost of electricity.
  371
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We shall ensure that the electricity supply industry is properly regulated after privatisation, for the benefit of consumers. The precise nature of the regulatory regime will depend on the decisions to be taken about the future structure of the industry.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps would be necessary for the protection of the environment and of the health and safety of the people in the event that nuclear electricity plants were transferred to private or foreign ownership.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Very high safety standards currently exist for the operation of nuclear power stations to protect the environment and the health and safety of both the work force and the general population. The Government have not yet decided on the structure of the privatised electricity supply industry but there will be no question of compromising safety standards or the regulatory framework which ensures that current standards are maintained.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what special provisions he will make for the protection of electricity supplies to pensioners in the event of privatisation of electricity supply;

  (2) what consultation he is having so as to ensure that privatisation of the electricity system does not worsen the situation as regards electricity supplies to pensioners, single parent families, the unemployed and students living on their own.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Our aim is to create a more efficient, economic and competitive industry for the benefit of all consumers. We are developing plans and consulting widely on the issues involved.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that the national electricity service gives priority to the satisfaction of the energy requirements of the population.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I are developing proposals for privatisation. Consumer service is a top priority.

  Gas
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, for every year since 1974, the number of gas supplies cut due to unpaid bills.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  This is a matter for British Gas plc. I have asked the chairman of British Gas to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he is having with medical experts and others on the health risks affecting people living in areas where nuclear electricity plants operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In fulfilment of a recommendation of the independent advisory group. which undertook an investigation of the possible increased incidence of cancer in West Cumbria (the Black report, a copy of which is in the Library), the Government established the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 1985. Its terms of reference 372
  are to assess and advise the Government on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation in the environment and assess the adequacy of the available data and the need for further research. My Department maintains a close interest in the work of COMARE.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what safeguards he proposes to introduce as regards the further use of nuclear materials by the electricity generation industry, in the event of privatisation of electricity gereration.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  All nuclear material in civil use is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom—Euratom—IAEA agreement regardless of whether it is in the private or public sector.

  Coal Industry (Subsidence)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he now expects the White Paper in reply to the Waddilove report on "The Repair and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence" to be published.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Government's response to the report of the subsidence compensation review committee, chaired by Mr. Lewis Waddilove CBE JP, has been published and laid before Parliament today by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales.

  The Government endorse the view of the Waddilove committee that a balance must be achieved between the justified claims of individuals who have experienced subsidence damage and the need to avoid an undue burden of cost to the British Coal Corporation and, indirectly, to the taxpayer.

  The Government also endorse Waddilove's view that it is British Coal's primary duty to repair damage. British Coal has already made a significant number of improvements to the management of its compensation scheme in line with this and other of the committee's recommendations.

  BCC has accepted the Government's view that there should be further improvements in line with the committee's recommendations. These include extending the scope of non-statutory compensation to householders and to tenants and owners of agricultural land; and allowing claimants, subject to the agreement of British Coal, to choose their own contractors to carry out repairs.

  Information about and monitoring of the compensation system will continue to be improved. British Coal will make an annual report on the operation of the scheme to the Secretary of State for Energy which he will lay before Parliament.

  The Government are considering introducing legislation to put on a statutory basis a number of the committee's recommendations, which would provide a single basis for coal mining subsidence compensation. A consultation document will issue early next year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many current occupants of Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales have ever been

  373
  admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis;

  (2) how many people were admitted to Her Majesty's prisons in England and Wales who had previously been discharged from mental illness hospitals and units after a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psyschosis in each of the last five years; and how many were recidivists;

  (3) how many people were admitted to Her Majesty's prisons in Wales who had previously been discharged from mental illness hospitals and units after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychosis in each of the last five years; and how many were recidivists.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Places
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison places have been made available by the opening of ex-Army camps; and how many vacancies there are at existing prison establishments.

  Mr. John Patten
  One Army camp, at Rollestone on Salisbury Plain, has been brought into use as a temporary prison this year. Since it opened on 3 August it has accommodated 430 prisoners who would otherwise have been held in other prison establishments. It is staffed by prison service personnel.

  The population in all prison establishments on Friday 23 October was 47,494 against a total certified normal accommodation of 42,957, a shortfall of 4,537 places. The total number of vacancies at individual establishment, including Full Sutton (which has just opened and has begun to receive prisoners), and at establishments which have been temporarily closed to allow staff to be deployed elsewhere, was 2,826.

  Fiji
  Mr. Boswell
  asked the Secretary of state for the Home Department what are the consequencies of Fiji's current withdrawal from the Commonwealth for these areas within the responsibilities of his Department, including specifically entitlement to register as British citizens and to vote in British elections.

  Mr. Renton
  Our understanding is that unless and until the law is changed citizens of Fiji who meet the requirements for registration as British citizens under section 7 of the British Nationality Act 1981 are eligible to be registered and retain the right to vote.

  Automatic Weapons
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the numbers of people that have been killed by automatic weapons from 1979 to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information on homicides is published in table 4.3 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1986", (Cm. 233) a copy of which is in the Library. The information collected centrally does not distinguish automatic weapons from other types of firearms.

  Opium Poppies
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that existing statutory controls are adequate to deal with the cultivation in the United Kingdom of opium poppies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The production of opiates from poppies is already controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, having assessed the level of risk from commercial opium poppy cultivation in this country, has advised us that there is no case at present for extending those powers.

  We have studied the advisory council's report very carefully, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have concluded that poppy cultivation on the present scale seems unlikely to be an additional source of illicit drugs and that the 1971 Act provides an adequate level of control. However, it is important that we continue to watch the situation and I have arranged for the Home Office drugs inspectorate to monitor all such crops in future for any evidence of improper diversion.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the procedures which operate in respect of inquiries to the police national computer to ensure that information is divulged only to those entitled to it; that the reasons for inquiries are subject to check to ensure that they are justified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the procedure for ensuring that information from the police national computer is divulged only to those entitled to it, is as described in my reply to the hon. Member of 18 November 1986, at column 89.

  A sample of the requests for information from the police national computer is checked each day to ensure that these related to a bona fide police purpose and that the appropriate records were correctly completed.

  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities have not fully implemented the guidelines proposed in paragraph 38 of the report by the Police Complaints Authority on the police national computer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  The attention of all chief officers has been drawn to the guidelines proposed in paragraph 38 of the Police Complaints Authority report on the police national computer. Records are not held centrally on the way in which each chief officer acted on these guildelines.

  In addition, the Association of Chief Police Officers is preparing a code of practice for police computer systems, including the police national computer, as encouraged under section 36(4) of the Data Protection Act, 1984. This will take full account of the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority. The intention is to make this available to the public and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Prisons (Mothers and Babies)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mother and baby places there are in prisons; how many current prisoners gave birth in the past two years; how many in the second category are not allowed their babies with them despite requesting it.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are 37 mother and baby places in prisons. Information on how many current inmates gave birth in the past two years, and how many of these are not allowed to have their babies with them despite requesting it, is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prison inmates reported as having been indentified as HIV antibody positive, at the latest available date.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 23 October 1987 the prison population of England and Wales included 33 inmates reported as having been identified as HIV antibody positive. 128 such cases had been reported since central monitoring began in March 1985.

  Data Protection Act
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Renton
  Following an internal assessment of the actual cost likely to be incurred in responding to subject access requests, data subjects will be charged a subject access fee of either £5, £7·50 or £10, depending on the particular Home Office registration to which they are seeking access, for each application.

  On 26 October 1987 the Home Office had 88 confirmed entries in the register, with a further seven applications at various stages of consideration by the registrar. Twenty of these registrations contain data used solely for preparing statistics or carrying out research and, as such, will not contain any data which the Home Office is required to reveal to data subjects, and two relate solely to the provision of bureau services. Of the remaining 73 registrations, four will attract a subject access fee of £5, and four a fee of £7·50. The remainder will attract a fee of £10. This means that fees totalling £700 would be payable if a data subject were to apply for subject access to all Home Office registrations: this is an unlikely eventuality given the wide spread of Home Office registrations as listed in the departmental pamphlet, "Summary of Home Office Registrations", a copy of which I am placing in the Library.

  Police (Efficiency)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators are at present being used to measure the efficiency and cost effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The setting of objectives, and the monitoring and evaluation of performance, is part of the 376
  responsibility of police managers at all levels. Central guidance on this and other good management practices is set out in the Home Office circular 114/1983, a copy of which is in the Library. Objectives are set in relation to local circumstances, and their evaluation is a matter for each chief officer of police, in consultation where appropriate with the local police authority.

  The Home Office has traditionally judged a force's efficiency and effectiveness by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's professional assessment of its overall performance, taking into account such matters as the extent and nature of policing problems in the area and the level of resources available to it. Statistical and other information is collected centrally from forces.

  Suspects (Questioning)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all interviews and questioning that takes place in police stations will be subject to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The provisions of the code of practice for the detention, treatment, and questioning of persons by police officers relate primarily to the questioning of persons suspected of an offence and who are detained in police custody. All such interviews must be conducted in accordance with the code's provisions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will be taking any action in regard to the Spastics Society's report on disabled people and the 1987 general election, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, (Mr. Wareing) on 21 October, at column 779.

  Anti-Apartheid Movement
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding telephone and mail interceptions affecting the staff and property of the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

  Mr. Hurd
  None.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning attacks against the staff and property of the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Representations have been received direct from the Anti-Apartheid Movement about the safety of members of the African National Congress following the arrest of persons later charged with conspiracy to kidnap members of the ANC. A reply was sent on 21 August. I have not received any representations related specifically to attacks against the staff and property of the Anti-Apartheid Movement.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will take measures to protect the property of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will take measures to protect the safety of the staff working at the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in the United Kingdom.
  377
  Mr. Hurd
  Advice on security measures is freely available from the police.

  Airports (Security)
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standing arrangements exist between the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the Civil Aviation Authority concerning procedures for dealing with emergencies at airports within the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that it is a condition of licences issued to the operators of civil airports by the Civil Aviation Authority that the operators draw up and review contingency plans for emergencies, in consultation with the police and other emergency services. The Commissioner has informed me that he has been consulted about such contingency plans by the operators of the Heathrow, London City, Biggin Hill and Elstree airports and the Westland heliport, Battersea.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is owed by his Department to the London Residuary Body in respect of unsettled Greater London council accounts.

  Mr. Hurd
  Pending receipt of audited grant claims, we estimate that £1·1 million still remains due to the London Residuary Body.

  Anti-Apartheid Demonstration
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were deployed in connection with the anti-apartheid demonstration on 24 October; what was the estimated cost; what was the police estimate of the number of demonstrations; and how many arrests were made.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 809 police officers were deployed in policing this demonstration at an additional cost of about £25,000. Some 25,000 people took part and there were seven arrests.

  Impersonation of Police Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in each of the past five years have been prosecuted for impersonating a police officer.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information recorded centrally is given in the following table:

  Defendants proceeded against under section 52 of the 1964 Police

  Act for impersonating a police officer:

  England and Wales

  Year

  Total proceeded against

  1982

  120

  1983

  108

  1984

  79

  1985

  74

  1986

  72

  Illegal Passport (Waterfield)
  Mr. Gorst
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to withdraw the illegal passport in the name of Waterfield, being used by Preta, the German-born common law wife of a Scottish narcotics criminal, Forbes Mitchell, to enable her to travel between Ibiza and Sweden with the knowledge of the Swedish authorities, for the purpose of visiting Mitchell while he is in prison; if he will institute inquiries with a view to taking appropriate action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The passport department cannot trace any passport application in the name of Preta Waterfield. If my hon. Friend can provide any further information about the alleged passport irregularity and will write to me, the matter will be further investigated.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he will allocate specific additional funds to police authorities to pay for the erection on lighting columns of approved neighbourhood watch scheme signs at the discretion and under the control of local police forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to provide Funds additional to those provided directly through the police grant, which is paid on 51 per cent. of all police expenditure. It is for police authorities to decide on the allocation of the resources at their disposal. I understand that some have funded the erection of neighbourhood watch street signs. However, many schemes have obtained private sponsorship to cover the cost of signs and this is to be encouraged. Effective local crime prevention initiatives such as neighbourhood watch need and deserve the support of all sectors of the community.

  Metropolitan Police (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 841, why he is not able to state how many Metropolitan police officers have been temporarily attached for duties in Northern Ireland in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Metropolitan police officers are temporarily attached for duties in Northern Ireland in response to operational requirements as they arise. No central record is kept of these attachments, which are few and usually of short duration.

  Immigration
  Mr. Terry Davis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce a quota for the admission of husbands and wives of British citizens to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  Whilst a quota would be among the options if changes were to be made, no proposals are now before me.

  Fresh Start
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the progress being

  379
  made in the implementation of new working practices in the prison service known as fresh start; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Seventy-three establishments and part of Her Majesty's remand centre, Pucklechurch are now on fresh start. Firm plans are made for the rest of Pucklechurch remand centre and another 23 establishments to move to full or transitional fresh start working during November, mostly on 1 November. Local discussions continue about moving the remaining 21 establishments on to fresh start. I know that prison service managers are doing their best to iron out problems so that these establishments can move to fresh start at the earliest possible date.

  We are continuing to aim to have every establishment on full fresh start working by the end of February 1988. To this end we plan to recruit a total of about 1,800 new officers in 1987–88. This will use our two training schools to full capacity throughout the year. In addition, we are hiring two police training centres in which to train 160 staff. After allowing for wastage and the staff needed for new accommodation this should produce about 750 additional staff for fresh start. The balance will come from a mix of redeployment and the recruitment of civilians, prison auxiliaries and night patrols.

  The next stage of the implementatiotn process is to establish as objectively as possible what has been the outcome of every aspect of the change to fresh start, including staffing levels. Information will be collected on every establishment and visits will be paid to a representative group of 10 establishments. It will be open to the trade union side to make its views known to the evaluation team. This work will be done in November, evaluated quickly and the results reviewed by senior management in the first part of December.

  I recognise that the change to fresh start is a formidable task for the prison service. There is accumulating evidence that we are set on the right course. I am satisfied with progress so far and look forward to full implementation relatively soon.

EMPLOYMENT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department of Employment group, comprising the Department of Employment, the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the Health and Safety Executive, and the Manpower Services Commission has a total of 94 entries on the data protection register. A fee of £10 will be charged for access to information held on most of its register entries, except that free access will be allowed to information held for the following purposes: the national unemployment benefit central computer system; job finding, training and related activities; the Department of Employment small firms service; the administration of the redundancy payments scheme; the 380
  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service; industrial tribunals administration; and internal departmental personnel administration.

  Employees (Reductions)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that those employees who heeded police warnings to stay at home on 16 October do not have deductions made by their employers from their pay.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have no power to intervene in matters of this kind.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how much is owed by his Department to the London residuary body in respect of unsettled Greater London council accounts.

  Mr. Lee
  No central record is kept of my Department's non-statutory financial liabilities under contract to individual local authorities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  International Space Year
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements Her Majesty's Government are making to participate in International Space Year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Arrangements for the United Kingdom's participation in International Space Year 1992 are being co-ordinated by the Royal Society through its British National Committee on Space Research (BNCSR)

  The Government are represented on the BNCSR and play a full part in the work of the committee.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading did not obtain from Arthur Young Management Consultants specific data concerning the effects of the proposed regulations pursuant to the Financial Services Act upon the incomes and viability of single-person firms of practitioners in the financial services industry before communicating his final recommendations to the Secretary of State prior to the coming into force of the new regulations; and whether he will ensure that this action is taken forthwith.

  Mr. Maude
  The Financial Services Act provides that, in deciding whether to give leave for the recognition of a self-regulation organisation, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State must have regard to the report made by the Director General of Fair Trading under section 122(2) of the Act. No such report has yet been submitted in respect of any of the organisations whose applications for recognition are currently under consideration. I understand that, in order to assist him in preparing these reports, the director general commissioned a report from Arthur Young Management Consultants (AYMC) on the effect of certain rules on small financial intermediaries. I am informed that the sample surveyed by AYMC included a number of sole practitioners.

  Space Research
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current total public expenditure on United Kingdom space research; and if he has any plans to increase it.

  Mr. Butcher
  The current total public expenditure on civil space research and development is £112 million a year. There are no plans to increase this figure.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state how much is the current United Kingdom contribution to the European Space Agency comparing it in percentage terms with those of other member states.

  Mr. Butcher
  United Kingdom expenditure on European Space Agency activities in the financial year 1986–87 was £79 million. Member states' contributions in percentage terms to European Space Agency expenditure in 1986 were:

  Per cent.

  Belgium

  3·4

  Denmark

  1·1

  France

  30·6

  Germany

  25·8

  Ireland

  0·2

  Italy

  15·0

  European Space Agency: Director General's Proposals of June 1987 (All figures in million European currency units, constant prices)

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Columbus Development

  —

  158

  258

  324

  418

  427

  453

  443

  423

  350

  109

  —

  —

  —

  3,363

  Ariane 5 Development

  —

  72

  410

  485

  510

  565

  565

  430

  350

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,496

  Hermes Development

  —

  76

  170

  318

  322

  380

  464

  535

  565

  560

  525

  475

  39

  —

  4,429

  Other expenditure

  1,486

  1,288

  1,043

  1,010

  1,101

  1,152

  1,180

  1,254

  1,326

  1,608

  1,993

  2,153

  2,583

  2,618

  21,795

  Total

  1,486

  1,594

  1,881

  2,137

  2,351

  2,524

  2,662

  2,662

  2,664

  2,627

  2,627

  2,628

  2,622

  2,618

  33,083

  Note: Today's exchange rate is £1 = 1·44 ecu.

  Space Industry
  Mr. David Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps his Department is taking to encourage public awareness of the potential and importance of the British space industry; and to encourage private sector investment.

  Mr. Butcher
  Through the British National Space Centre (BNSC), the Government aim to encourage public awareness of the potential and importance of the British space industry to scientific research and to industrial applications. This it does through press notices; publications; newsletters and posters; the encouragement of articles and a programme of speeches. The BNSC also participates in major aerospace exhibitions and has published a directory of United Kingdom space capabilities.

  The BNSC also works closely with the Department of Education and Science to encourage an awareness of the uses of space activity in school curricula and has published a guide to courses, research opportunities and sponsorship for students.
  382

  Per cent.

  Netherlands

  3·7

  Spain

  2·5

  Sweden

  2·5

  Switzerland

  2·0

  United Kingdom

  13·1

  100·0

  Austria and Norway were riot members in 1986

  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the breakdown of annual expenditure proposed to Her Majesty's Government by the European Space Agency, listing it in the following four categories: Ariane 5, Hermes spacecraft, Columbus spacecraft, and other ventures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The latest comprehensive proposal from the European Space Agency, dated June 1987, gives total expenditure figures (in million European currency units (ecu) at today's prices) for the Columbus, Ariane 5 and Hermes development programmes as listed in the table.

  We are still awaiting the ESA director generals's final proposals for the Ministerial Council on 9–10 November, but one change of which we have been informed is that the cost of Columbus development has increased to 3.9 billion ecu.

  The proposed development programmes are optional, and, if they are agreed, it will be for each member state to decide on its level of participation.

  Following the Prime Minister's invitation to the Private sector to come forward with further resources, major aerospace companies agreed to continue work at company expense on certain key national space programmes until the European Space Agency Ministerial Council meeting in November. Meanwhile, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is having discussions with industry on possible long-term cooperation in the United Kingdom's space activities.

  Space Policy
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recommendations for future United Kingdom space policy arose from the recent meeting of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  Mr. Butcher
  The advice received from the Advisory Council on Science and Technology on the subject of space research and development was given in confidence.

  HOTOL
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of HOTOL.

  Mr. Butcher
  For the present until end-1987 British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce have agreed to continue on their own responsibility the proof of concept studies on HOTOL commenced in 1986. We are currently reviewing the future progress of HOTOL with the companies.

  Ariane 5 Launch Vehicle
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much British investment is required for United Kingdom companies to qualify for contracts for the Ariane 5 launch vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  The preparatory work for the Ariane 5 programme has indicated a potential United Kingdom industrial involvement amounting to 2·8 per cent. At this rate of contribution the United Kingdom would have to contribute about £84 million to ESA between now and 1997. This programme will be one of the programmes to be considered at the ESA ministerial meeting on 9–10 July.

  Shipbuilding Industry
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the projected number of jobs in the shipbuilding industry from 1987 to 1991.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are presently some 32,000 employed in shipbuilding in Great Britain, 8,000 in BS and other merchant yards and 24,000 in yards privatised by BS. There is no reliable basis on which to forecast the position in future years.

  Advisory Committee on Science and Technology
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology has met since its formation; what subjects have been discussed at its meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  One full meeting of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) has taken place since its inception.

  Among the items discussed were draft reports on optoelectronics and on the industrial impact of the decision to go ahead with the construction of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell B; and the second stage of a study on barriers to growth for small companies.

  The meeting also gave preliminary consideration to national priorities for science and technology, both in basic science and in strategic areas, such as space research, and Sir Francis Tombs reported progress in setting up the centre for exploitation of science and technology.

  ACOST derives considerable benefit from the ability to conduct its business in confidence. It is not customary for the outcome of its discussions to be made public unless the chairman specifically requests the Prime Minister's permission to publish the council's advice. However, in the past, ACOST's predecessor, the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development (ACARD) has
  384
  published many valuable reports on a range of important subjects and I anticipate that ACOST will produce similar reports within its enlarged terms of reference in due course.

  EC Trade Marks Office
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on recent developments in the bid by the United Kingdom to house the European Community Trade Marks office in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  There has been little progress in Brussels recently towards reaching a decision on where to house the Community trade marks office. The European Commission drew up a short-list, including the United Kingdom bid, in February, but has not yet decided what its recommendation to the Council of Ministers should be. The Government are continuing to pursue their hid with vigour in Community circles.

  Pensions
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from the National Consumer council on proposed revisions to the Lautro rule book permitting pension quotations to be made in both monetary and real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  No such representations have been received.

  Invisibles and Surpluses
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent he estimates official statistics to he understating (a) the United Kingdom's surplus on trade in invisibles and (b) the United Kingdom's share of world trade in services.

  Mr. Maude
  Although the official statistics on invisibles, especially for recent periods, are recognised to be subject to a significant range of possible error, there is no clear evidence to indicate that either the United Kingdom surplus on invisibles or the United Kingdom share of world trade in services is being significantly understated.

  Whale Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will impose a ban on the import of all whale products as separate items or as part of fully or semi-manufactured goods; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what efforts are made by his Department to establish the extent of the use of whale products in manufactured or semi-manufactured goods imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maude
  EC regulation 3626/82 (in force since 1 January 1984) bans the import of all whale products for commercial purposes. The Department of the Environment, through the agency of Customs and Excise, is responsible for ensuring compliance with it.

  Arbitration
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the Government's policy on approval by

  385
  the Director General of Fair Trading under section 124 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 of a code of practice promoted by a trade association under which arbitration is compulsory, so excluding a consumer's right to recourse to the courts for settlement of disputes.

  Mr. Maude
  The exercise of the powers under section 124 of the Fair Trading Act is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which trade associations have codes of practice approved by the Director General of Fair Trading under section 124 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 which make provision for arbitration to settle disputes under the code which is compulsory, and exclude the right of the consumer to take the matter to court.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for the director general. I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the codes of practice approved by the Director General of Fair Trading under section 124 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 which make provision for arbitration to settle disputes, while at the same time preserving the right of the consumer to have recourse to the courts.

  Mr. Maude
  The codes of practice drawn up in consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading which make such provision are as follows:

  Association of British Travel Agents: Tour Operators Code of Conduct and Guidelines for Booking Conditions.

  Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances Principles for Domestic Electrical Appliance Servicing.

  British Holiday and Home Parks Association and National Caravan Council.

  Code of Practice for Selling and Siting Holiday Caravans:

  Code of Practice for Letting Holiday Caravans

  Code of Practice for the Photographic Industry.

  Domestic Electrical Appliance Servicing by Electricity Boards in England and Wales.

  Domestic Electrical Appliance Servicing by Scottish Electricity Boards.

  Finance Houses Association Code of Practice.

  Glass and Glazing Federation: Code of Ethical Practice.

  Mail Order Traders Association: Code of Practice.

  National Association of Funeral Directors: Code of Practice.

  Voluntary Code of Practice for Furniture.

  Code of Practice for Postal Services.

  Code of Practice for Vehicle Body Repairs

  Code of Practice for the Motor Industry.

  Code of Practice for the Motorcycle Industry.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the trade organisation in respect of which the Director General of Fair Trading has refused approval of the organisation's proposed code of practice under the Fair Trading Act 1973 on the grounds that arbitration under the proposed code was to be compulsory, without the option for the consumer to have recourse to the courts for the disposal of disputes.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for the director general. I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Inner Cities
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about progress on his Department's inner cities initiatives.
  386
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to say that the work of our 16 inner city task forces is going ahead well with more than 200 projects supported since the initiative began in February 1986. The private sector is playing a growing part in our efforts.

  Clydesdale Tube Plant
  Dr. Reid
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Her Majesty's Government plan to announce any further investment in plant and machinery at the Clydesdale tube plant at Mossend.

  Mr. Atkins
  Investment by BSC at individual plants is a matter for the Corporation, subject to requirements for Government approval laid down under the Iron and Steel Act. BSC are continuing to invest in their Clydesdale plant as part of their overall programme of capital investment agreed with Government.

  Regional Development
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the decline in regional development grant payments to the north-east of England results from changes in development and special development areas since 1980, what proportion results from a fall in investments by manufacturing industry in the region and what proportion results from changes in the scheme itself.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is not possible to quantify separately the effects of these various factors on the level of regional development grant payments in the north-east. Between 1980 and 1984, however, the proportion of the region's working population covered by development and special development areas—the latter status being abolished in November 1984—fell from nearly 100 per cent. to around 80 per cent.

  The north-east region's share of RDG payments in Great Britain in 1986–87 was higher than in the preceding four years and has risen further in the first six months of 1987–88.

  Iraq (Credit)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent lines of credit have been made available to Iraq; of what value and with what conditions as to the use of the funds made available; and what loans have been made available in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Butcher
  One. The Governments of the United Kingdom and Iraq signed a financial protocol on 24 September 1987 under which ECGD will provide support for a £100 million line of credit for the supply of United Kingdom capital goods, equipment and services on credit terms of up to five years and a £75 million line of credit for the supply of prepared pharmaceutical products, medical equipment, veterinary medicines, the bulk supply of semi-processed pharmaceuticals, insecticides, powdered milk and baby milk powder on credit terms of up to 18 months. These loan facilities will be signed in 1988.

  2. Two earlier protocols for £250 million each were signed in 1983 and 1984 and the uptake of these loans is as follows. All of the pharmaceutical lines of credit were additional to the protocol amounts.

  1983–84

  £250 million general purpose line of credit (including two project buyer credits).

  387

  £25 million pharmaceutical line of credit.

  1985

  £100 million general purpose line of credit.

  £50 million pharmaceutical line of credit.

  1986

  £50 million pharmaceutical line of credit.

  1987

  £50 million pharmaceutical line of credit.

  £20 million veterinary medicine line of credit.

  £50 million general purpose line of credit.

  £28 million buyer credits for 3 water resource projects

  £52 million general purpose line of credit.

  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Enterprize Zone)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding the possibility of creating an enterprize zone in Greenock or Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received no recent representations regarding the possibility of creating an enterprise zone in Greenock or Port Glasgow.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mrs. Peacock
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing output in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing output in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of manufacturing output in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  In the three months to August 1987 manufacturing output was 6 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how United Kingdom performance in terms of the growth of manufacturing productivity compares with that of other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Brazier
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how United Kingdom performance in terms of the growth of manufacturing productivity compares with that of other major industrial countries.

  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how United Kingdom performance in terms of the growth of manufacturing productivity compares with that of other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  Over the year to the second quarter of 1987, manufacturing productivity in the United Kingdom grew 61 per cent. which is substantially faster than in any other major industrial country.

  Mr. Hargreaves
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the growth of manufacturing productivity in the north-west.

  Mr. Major
  On the accepted definition of productivity, no figures are available on a regional basis. In the United 388
  Kingdom as a whole manufacturing productivity in the three months to August was 6·8 per cent. higher than a year earlier.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to alter the 15 per cent. value added tax rate for United Kingdom to bring confectionery into zero rate like other foods.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the time limit within which traders must account for value added tax compared with the average time it takes them to collect the value added tax owed to them on their own invoices.

  Mr. Lilley
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, subsequent to him putting down this question my hon. Friend the Paymaster General made an announcement about cash accounting on 17 August. There have been persistent representations from small businesses that they frequently have to pay VAT before their own bills are paid. To meet this, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General introduced, from the start of this month, an optional system of cash accounting for VAT, under which small traders no longer have to pay VAT until they have received their payment from their customers.

  World Debt
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report recent progress following his debt initiative for the benefit of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lawson
  There has been wide recognition of the need for special help for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Good progress has been made on two of the proposals in my initiative: the United Kingdom has converted aid loans into grants for 13 African countries, and other creditor countries are following suit, and five countries have had their official debts rescheduled over longer than usual periods in the Paris club. I am continuing to press for international action to reduce interest rates on rescheduled official debt.

  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with other Finance Ministers regarding world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Last month my right hon. Friend attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the meetings of the IMF and World Bank where the Debt problems of some of the developing countries, especially those of the poorest in sub-Saharan Africa, were discussed.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report recent progress following his debt initiative for the benefit of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Wells
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report recent progress following his debt initiative for the benefit of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
  389
  Mr. Key
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report recent progress following his debt initiative for the benefit of the poorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Mr. Lilley
  Considerable progress has been made towards implementing two of the specific proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made at the April meeting of the Development Committee: The United Kingdom has converted aid loans into grants for 13 African countries; other creditor countries are following suit. Five countries have had their official debts rescheduled over longer than usual periods in the Paris club. We are continuing to press for international action to reduce interest rates on rescheduled official debt.

  Service Sector
  Mrs. Gorman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of the service sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of the service sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for the growth of the service sector in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  The service sector grew by 5 per cent. over the year to the second quarter of 1987.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Watts
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how the growth of the United Kingdom economy compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Boswell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how the growth of the United Kingdom economy compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to how the growth of the United Kingdom economy compares with that of other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over the year to the second quarter of 1987, the United Kingdom economy grew almost 4 per cent., which is substantially faster than any other major industrial economy.

  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been the change in output in the first six months of 1987 compared with the equivalent period of 1986.

  Mr. Hayward
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in output in the first six months of 1987 compared with the equivalent period in 1986.

  Mr. Haselhurst
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been the rise in output in the first six months of 1987 compared with the equivalent period in 1986.

  Mr. Major
  4·3 per cent

  IMF
  Mr. Carrington
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington.

  Mr. Arnold
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his recent discussions at the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning total for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Livingstone
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning totals for 1986–87 and 1987–88.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning total for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the public spending planning totals for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett).

  Mr. Nelson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement in the current financial year.

  Mr. Major
  The Budget forecast for the public sector borrowing requirement in 1987–88 was £3·9 billion. A new foreast will be published in the autumn statement.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the proceeds from privatisation sales in 1987–88.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy).

  Unemployment Costs
  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in the east midlands.

  Mrs. Walley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prepare a region-by-region estimate of the total annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in Wales.
  391
  Mr. Buckley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in Scotland.

  Mr. Clelland
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment in the northern region.

  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will prepare a region-by-region estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of unemployment.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).

  National Economic Development Council
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the National Economic Development Council.

  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the National Economic Development Council.

  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the National Economic Development Council.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the National Economic Development Council.

  Mr. Major
  My right hon. Friend plans to attend the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council, which will be on 13 January 1988.

  Exchange Rates
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of the pound sterling—US dollar exchange rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  At the London close on 28 October the sterling-dollar exchange rate was 1·71.

  Oil Revenues
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total (a) gross and (b) net revenue received since 1979 by the Exchequer from North sea oil.

  Mr. Lilley
  Available information was provided to the hon. Member on 14 July, at column 568, by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of North sea oil revenues in 1987–88.

  Mr. McFall
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of North sea oil revenues in 1987–88.

  Mr. Lilley
  An updated forecast for Government revenues from United Kingdom oil and gas production in 1987–88 will be provided in the 1987 autumn statement.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gwilym
  Jones asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by the higher rates of income tax in 1978–79 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by the higher rates of income tax in 1978–79 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by the higher rates of income tax in 1978–79 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. David
  Shaw asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by the higher rates of income tax in 1978–79 and 1986–87, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total tax liability resulting from the difference between the higher rates of income tax and the basic rate rose from £810 million in 1978–79 to about £2,500 million in 1986–87. This represent an increase in real terms of about 60 per cent. calculated by reference to the movement in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total yield of income tax is paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers; and how this figure compares with five years ago.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Income tax liabilities of the top 5 per cent. of taxpaying single people and married couples are estimated to be 28·5 per cent. of the total in 1987–88 compared with 25·4 per cent. in 1982–83. The estimate for 1987–88 is based on a projection of the 1984–85 survey of personal incomes and is therefore provisional.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth in real personal disposable incomes over the past year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth of personal disposable incomes over the past year.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth).

  £2 Coin
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals for the introduction of a £2 coin.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government have no plans to introduce a £2 coin for general circulation.

  Inflation
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Soames
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
  393
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increase in retail prices over the 12 months ending September 1987 was 4·2 per cent.

  European Monetary System
  Mr. MacLennan
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to his policy on British membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given recently to the United Kingdom seeking full participation in the European monetary system.

  Mr. Peter Lilley
  The matter is kept under review.

  Company Investment (Rate of Return)
  Mr. Grylls
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the net real rate of return in the company sector.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. Hind
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for unit labour costs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest figures for unit labour costs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Major
  The latest figures show that in the first quarter of 1987 unit labour costs for the whole economy rose by 3·7 per cent. Manufacturing unit wage costs rose by 1·5 per cent. over the previous year in the three months ending in August.

  Invisible Earnings
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of invisible earnings in the United Kingdom; and how it compares with the levels five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of invisible earnings in the United Kingdom; and how it compares with the levels five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

  Private Shareholding
  Mr. Wood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures on the extent of private shareholding in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest figures on the extent of private shareholding in the United Kingdom.
  394
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon).

  Taxation
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to reduce capital taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce measures to extend the mortgage interest relief allowance for married couples.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The level of mortgage interest relief has to be fixed each year and will be considered in framing the Budget proposals.

  Price Stability
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on progress towards achieving Her Majesty's Government's ultimate objective of price stability.

  Mr. Major
  Price stability remains the Government's ultimate objective. Recent movements in the retail prices index have been consistent with the Budget forecast of 4 per cent. inflation in the fourth quarter of 1987. A new forecast will be published in the autumn statement.

  Tax Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining his longterm plans for tax reform.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Chancellor has made clear that he will continue to pursue policies of tax reform and tax reduction aimed at sharpening incentives, stimulating enterprise and thus promoting sustained economic growth. The hon. Member will not expect me to comment on any specific measures in advance of the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further fiscal measures he intends to implement to benefit small businesses.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government will continue to pursue policies designed to promote a vigorous, enterprising economy in which small businesses can flourish.

  I cannot anticipate decisions on specific measures which may be announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's next Budget statement. A list of some of the measures helpful to the small businesses which have been introduced was given in the Chief Secretary's written replay to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 20 July 1987, at column 72.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Dr. Reid
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall).

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the absence of tax relief on the sale of milk quotas and the effect this has on farmers moving between farms or leaving the industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Legislation will be introduced in next year's Finance Bill extending capital gains tax rollover relief to both milk and potato quotas. The relief will be available where there is a disposal or acquisition of milk or potato quota after midnight tonight.

  Parliamentary Papers (Printing)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current difficulties in printing parliamentary papers and particularly questions and motions at Her Majesty's Stationery Office's Parliamentary Press.

  Mr. Lilley
  With St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press now closed the new Parliamentary Press began to produce the Votes and Proceedings bundle from 20 October using new technology. Everything possible has been done in the summer recess to simulate live production and to ensure the necessary computer formats have been tested but there is no substitute for live production.

  I regret that the very heavy submission of questions in the first few days following the recess led to difficulties which were compounded by a computer system fault which caused delays to the provision of printed papers in the usual form.

  The Parliamentary Press is very conscious of the inconvenience caused to right hon. and hon. Members and is sparing no efforts to restore normal service. In the meantime copies of the papers will be produced in an alternative form and held in reserve for use if necessary until it is clear that system faults have been overcome.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed EEC/Cyprus customs union agreement will in practice include the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus; whether it will only apply in practice to that part of the island of Cyprus governed by the Greek Cypriots; and if he will make a statement to explain how this new agreement can help both Greek Cypriots in the south and Turkish Cypriots in the north of Cyprus.
  396
  Mrs. Chalker
  The protocol to the EC—Cyprus association agreement, implementing the commitment in the agreement to develop a customs union, which was signed on 19 October, is governed by article 5 of the association agreement. This rules out discrimination between nationals or the companies of Cyprus. The Community has made it clear that the provisions of the protocol apply to the whole population of Cyprus. The interests of the Turkish Cypriot community were taken fully into account during the negotiations. We shall continue to trade with them. I am confident that they will benefit in practice.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for Her Majesty's Government's ability to act as an honest broker in the middle east of its policy on arms exports to different middle east countries.

  Mr. Mellor
  All exports of defence-related equipment are considered on a strict case-by-case basis. Each transaction is subject to stringent export licensing procedures, including an assessment of foreign policy and regional security implications and consideration of the human rights record of the country concerned.

  These strict procedures are applied uniformly to all defence equipment exports worldwide, including the Middle East. In addition, special ministerial guidelines or restrictions are applied to exports to certain Middle Eastern countries, reflecting Her Majesty's Government's wish not to exacerbate or prolong conflicts in the region, and our determination to take a firm line on state-sponsored terrorism. Consequently, our policy on the export of defence related equipment in no way compromises our ability to work for a negotiated settlement to problems in the Middle East.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the status of Gibraltar; what was the outcome of the most recent expression of opinion on their future by the people of Gibraltar; and what discussions are currently taking place with the Spanish Government on this matter.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will continue to stand by the undertaking in the 1969 Gibraltar constitution to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar on the future status of Gibraltar. Repeated opinion polls have confirmed the findings of the 1967 referendum in which the people of Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly in favour of retaining their links with Britain. My right hon. and learned Friend meets the Spanish Foreign Minister at regular intervals for discussions under the 1984 Brussels agreement. He will be doing so again at the end of November.

  Mr. and Mrs. Vladimir Tufeld
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Soviet Government about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Vladimir Tufeld of Moscow and the

  397
  refusal of the Soviet authorities to allow them to join their son and daughter-in-law in Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We deplore the refusal of the Soviet authorities to allow Mr. and Mrs. Vladimir Tufeld to join their family in Israel. Their name was included on the list of refusenik cases which my right hon. and learned Friend handed to Mr. Shevardnadze in March. We shall continue to press the Soviet Government to adopt a more humane approach in cases of this kind.

  Fiji
  Mr. Boswell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the consequences of Fiji's current withdrawal from the Commonwealth for those areas within the responsibilities of his Department, including specifically the accreditation of the respective high commissioners and under Commonwealth auspices and the subscription to the Commonwealth Secretariat and other bodies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  If Fiji remains outside the Commonwealth. the application of a number of Acts of Parliament will have to be reviewed. Fiji's lapsed Commonwealth membership does not invalidate the accreditation of diplomatic representatives. The question of a reallocation of Fiji's share of the budgets of various Commonwealth organisations—0·75 per cent. of the total in respect of the Commonwealth Secretariat—is a matter for the organisations themselves.

  Namibia
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new measures Her Majesty's Government will apply in order to bring help to the international community trying to end the occupation of Namibia by South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 26 October 1987.

  Benguela Railays
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the offer made in Vancouver at the Commonwealth conference of British aid to the front-line states includes funds, technical cooperation and military protection of the Benguela railways.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A programme of co-ordinated Commonwealth assistance to the front-line states was agreed at Vancouver, giving priority attention to the Limpopo railway and port of Maputo initially, to which we had already committed £16 million. No separate British offer was made.

  Southern Africa (Attacks)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the last information received by Her Majesty's Government of the cost of the damages inflicted by the attacks by South African troops or their mercenaries on the economies of Mozambique, Angola, and other front-line states.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have no reliable information.

  Mr. Oscar Arias (Congratulations)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the date of the congratulatory messages sent by Her Majesty's Government to the President of Costa Rica, Mr. Oscar Arias, for his Nobel peace prize.

  Mr. Eggar
  14 October.

  Chile (University Students)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has received from Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago with regard to the new wave of repression against university students and academics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy in Santiago has reported fully on the current strike and regrettable disturbances at the University of Chile.

  Human Rights (Commonwealth)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining information available to Her Majesty's Government on the human rights record of each member country of the Commonwealth, stating specifically in each case the extent to which that country practises racial, religious, political or colour discrimination.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No country currently a member of the Commonwealth has a constitution which discriminates on the grounds of race, religion or colour. Where Commonwealth countries' practice on human rights gives cause for concern, we make representations as necessary. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 23 January 1986, such representations are sometimes more productive if undertaken without publicity, and it would therefore not be helpful to disclose full details.

  Mr. Scallan (Detention)
  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Italian Government about the detention of Mr. Scallan, the captain of a ship held by the Italian authorities in Savona; what consular access has been granted to Mr. Scallan; and what information he has received from the Italian Government about the circumstances of his arrest.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made no representations to the Italian Government about the detention of Mr. Scallan. He is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and we understand that the Irish embassy in Rome are providing consular assistance to him.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the efforts of the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate the whole range of nuclear weapons which are located on European soil.

  Mr. Mellor
  We warmly welcome the prospect of an intermediate nuclear force agreement which, if attainable,
  399
  will eliminate a whole class of nuclear weapons, many of which are deployed in Europe. It is not United States or NATO policy to seek the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons from Europe. Even after an INF agreement, NATO faces a formidable threat from Soviet and Warsaw Pact nuclear, conventional and chemical forces. It is our policy to continue to rely for our security on deterrence based on a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future.

  East Timor (Civil Rights)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his intention to raise with the Indonesian authorities the question of the provision of arms and the protection of civil rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to do so. Defence equipment is supplied to Indonesia in accordance with our normal criteria. The Indonesian Government are well aware of our views on human rights in East Timor.

THE ARTS

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme has been an outstanding success, bringing in £15 million of new money into the arts and attracting 600 new sponsors. During the summer sponsorship continued to grow and there was a marked increase in awards at the maximum amount. This led to the cash-limited annual funds being used up earlier than anticipated. However, I was able to allocate further modest sums to enable the scheme to continue at a reduced maximum amount per head. The scheme will be strengthened next year.

DEFENCE

  Weather Forecasts
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate inquiries into the nature of weather forecasts provided for the south of England in respect of 15–16 October, and in particular the reasons for the discrepancies between the forecasts issued by his Department and the meteorological services of other countries on that night.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Director-General of the Meteorological Office is already conducting an internal investigation into the nature and sequence of meteorological events surrounding the storm which struck the south and east of England on 15 and 16 October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer FRS, chairman of the University Grants Committee, and Professor Robert Pearce, head of the department of meteorology at Reading university, to examine the findings of that inquiry and to present their conclusions to him. He proposes to make these public. In the meantime, I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of the inquiries.

  Directorate General of Quality Assurance
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to be able to announce a decision about the future location of the headquarters of the Directorate General of Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The appraisal of future locations for the work done by the Directorate General of Defence Quality Assurance continues to make steady progress.

  Low-flying Exercises
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the different parts of the territory of the United Kingdom which are affected by low-flight exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since the introduction of the revised United Kingdom low-flying system in 1979, all parts of Great Britain have, in principle, been open to low-flying aircraft, the aim being to spread the activity as widely and evenly as possible. To reduce disturbance on the ground, however, aircraft avoid overflying major population centres, and, for safety reasons, civil air traffic zones. Major low-flying exercises also take place throughout Great Britain, although many tend to be centred on military ranges or training areas.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flight exercises the Royal Air Force carried out over United Kingdom territory for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of military low-level training sorties flown in the United Kingdom since 1975 are as follows:

  Number

  1975

  78,000

  1976

  77,700

  1977

  76,000

  1978

  76,000

  1979

  108,860

  1980

  122,850

  1981

  131,840

  1982

  130,310

  1983

  128,000

  1984

  133,500

  1985

  141,760

  1986

  151,160

  1987

  1113,405

  1 Up to 30 September.

  Approximately 82 per cent. of these involved United Kingdom military aircraft; 70 per cent. involved RAF aircraft.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost of each low-flight exercise since 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of a low-level flight varies according to the duration of the flight, the aircraft type and the sort of training involved. Major exercises are only part of our low-flying training programme and are not costed separately. The figures requested could not be produced without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average duration of low-flight exercises over populated parts of United Kingdom territory.

  Mr. Freeman
  The average duration of a low-level flying training sortie is approximately 45 minutes during
  401
  which time a distance of around 400 miles may be covered. Aircrew are instructed to avoid overflying the centres of main built-up areas but cannot always avoide overflying the outskirts of such areas, or other smaller settlements. These instructions apply both to day-to-day training and major low-flying exercises.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians affected by human or property loss due to accidents of low-flight operations have pending claims for damages from his Department; and if he will detail how long such claims have awaited a decision.

  Mr. Freeman
  No civilian has a claim pending in respect of human loss but 20 have claims outstanding for property damage. Two arise from a crash in December 1984, five from two crashes in December 1986 and the remainder from crashes earlier this year.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instruct the commanding officers in charge of low-flight operations to consult local authorities and local communities about the scale, frequency and timing of such exercises.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no need to issue new instructions: all use of the United Kingdom low-flying system is already regulated carefully in order to minimise any disturbance to those on the ground. Where major low-flying exercises are concerned, it is our policy to give advance warning to hon. Members whose constituencies will see additional low-flying activity, as well as to the local press and local organisations such as the National Farmers' Unions.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people have been killed, injured or had their property damaged or destroyed as a consequence of low-flight exercise accidents; and how many of these were civilians;

  (2) how many low-flying exercise accidents occurred for each year since 1975; where they took place; and what was the population for each of the areas affected by such accidents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information prior to 1979 is not readily available. Since 1 January 1979, 11 Royal Air force personnel have died and a further seven Royal Air force personnel have suffered major injuries as a result of the following accidents on land in the United Kingdom involving low-flying operations by fast jet aircraft.

  Date

  Location

  6 July 1979

  Tintagel, Cornwall

  One major injury

  23 November 1979

  Central Scotland

  One fatality

  10 December 1979

  Lumsden, Aberdeenshire

  One fatality and one major injury

  12 February 1980

  Isle of Skye

  One fatality

  18 November 1981

  Lock Luichart, Ross

  One fatality

  13 May 1982

  Near Aberystwyth, Wales

  One major injury

  24 June 1983

  Near Ramsey, Isle of Man

  Two fatalities

  12 July 1984

  Near Sheringham, Norfolk

  One major injury

  7 October 1985

  Alston, Cumbria

  One fatality

  7 January 1986

  Aysgarth, North Yorkshire

  Two major injuries

  17 June 1987

  Near Keswick, Cumbria

  One fatality

  24 June 1987

  Buillh Wells, Wales

  One fatality

  402

  Date

  Location

  27 July 1987

  Fadmoor, North Yorkshire

  One major injury

  26 August 1987

  Near Aberystwyth, Wales

  Two fatalities

  Two civilians sustained minor injuries as a result of the accident on 6 July 1979. There have been no civilian fatalities. All of these accidents occurred in sparsely populated areas. Resulting claims for compensation to the value of £80,804 have been settled so far, but some claims originating from recent accidents are still under consideration.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if, after consultations with the local authorities of areas affected by low-flight exercises, he will instruct the commanding officers in charge of such operations to reduce to a minimum such flights and to conduct them at the hours of the day or night at which they are likely to cause the minimum of inconvenience to the people affected by them;

  (2) what specific instructions exist about the time of the day or night in which low-flight operations are conducted in case they affect populated areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Freeman
  Every effort is already made to minimise the disturbance caused by this essential activity as far as possible, commensurate with our training needs and safety considerations. Most low-flying training takes place on weekdays between 7 am and 11 pm. Only a small amount of activity takes place outside these hours and this is strictly limited.

  Environment Protection
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the instructions given to the armed forces with regard to the respect and protection of the environment when building accommodation for their personnel, preparing exercises or conducting any kind of operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Crown is exempt from the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts but Government Departments are required to consult local planning authorities before proceeding with development, and the Ministry of Defence adheres strictly to this procedure. Plans to build accommodation for the armed forces are therefore submitted to the local planning authorities, which will take environmental aspects into consideration at that stage.

  The Ministry of Defence takes seriously its responsibility to conserve the land used for military purposes and puts much effort into protecting the environment on its estate. When preparing exercises the armed forces consult the landowners and environmental agencies as appropriate and seek to minimise disturbance to the environment from their activities.

  Personation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past five years individuals have been apprehended in possession of a false Ministry of Defence police warrant card.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Only one instance, the recent Larsen case, has come to the notice of the Ministry of Defence
  403
  police. We know of no instance where the use of a false MOD police warrant card has been used in the commission of a crime, or to attempt to gain unauthorised access to MOD property.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have been recorded in the last five years of individuals entering defence establishments wearing military uniforms to which they were not entitled.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No central records are held of individuals entering or attempting to enter defence establishments in these circumstances and it would require a disproportionate effort to collect them.

  Marconi
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police liaised with or operated in conjunction with the chief constable of Hampshire in executing the recent Ministry of Defence police raid on the Marconi company's premises in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence police, in accordance with guidelines, informed the Hampshire constabulary on 22 October of their intention to execute a warrant to search the premises of Marconi Defence Systems at. Portsmouth on the following day.

  Inter-force Working Arrangements
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and the Association of Chief Police Officers reached an agreement on inter-force working arrangements, when a copy of that agreement will be placed in the Library as announced to Standing Committee B on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill [Lords] on 12 February, Official Report, column 58; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  During the passage of the legislation my predecessor referred to the fact that discussions were taking place with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the relationship between MOD police and Home Department forces. I am glad to say that the Association and the Ministry of Defence police committee have now agreed the terms of guidelines on this matter. These guidelines have been disseminated to chief constables of Home Department forces under cover of circulars issued by the Home Office and the Scottish Home and Health Department. I am arranging for copies of both circulars to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  £ per tonne

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Buying-in prices

  819·41 (until 19 May)

  904·66 (until 22 May)

  925·76 (until 2 April)

  1,026·23 (until 26 May)

  1,076·71 (until 11 May)

  904·66 (after 19 May)

  925·76 (after 22 May)

  1,026·23 (after 2 April)

  1,076·71 (after 26 May)

  1,106·24 (after 21 May)

  Average incidental costs1

  n/a

  21·11

  18·40

  22·08

  20·43

  Average sale prices for animal feed

  198·50

  146·90

  150·44

  152·12

  139·43

  Contracts (Overcharging)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 874, if he will give a breakdown of the £14·5 million refunded by contractors in 1984 following a post-costing review of contract prices.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No; such information is subject to commercial confidentiality.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dry Sow and Tether Stalls
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce regulations to phase out the use of dry sow and tether stalls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council is currently carrying out a review of pig production systems including the dry sow and tether stall. I expect to receive the council's conclusions around the end of this year. I have no plans at present to phase out dry sow and tether stalls.

  Pate de Foie Gras
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will support action (i) to end the production of pate de foie gras in the European Community or (ii) to ban its import into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I cannot support either action. My Department has no plans to impose a ban on the import of pate de foie gras, as I am advised that such a step would contravene the Treaty of Rome. In any case it is for individuals to decide whether or not to buy or consume foie gras.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 889, if he will give details of (a) the intervention cost, (b) the storage cost, and (c) the sale price of the 278,612 tonnes of skimmed milk powder sold for manufacture into animal feed between 1982 and 1986.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, details of buying-in prices and average incidental costs for all purchases of SMP, together with average sale prices of SMP destined for animal feed over the period in question are as follows:
  405

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Amounts sold (tonnes)

  4,310

  60,927

  145,444

  34,561

  33,370

  1 Includes transport, storage and handling costs.

  Food (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to establish from the EEC Commission whether the radioactive skimmed milk powder which was sent from West Germany to Ghana under the EEC food relief programme was imported to West Germany from East Europe under the inner German trade agreement; if, in the light of the restrictions on the movement of radioactive food from Czechoslovakia announced on 8 May 1986, he will further inquire if the skimmed milk powder which was also sent from Czechoslovakia was transported through the EEC and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to do so, although if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that Community rules may have been infringed I will arrange for it to he passed to the Commission.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the financial problems facing farmers whose farm buildings were uninsured and damaged in the recent hurricane; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I made it clear when replying to my Hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on 22 October that I saw no reason to depart from the principle that farmers normally bear the cost of bad weather and that the Government should not compensate them for such losses—against which the majority would normally be insured. It would not be equitable for the Government to take action to make good insurable losses.

  Religious Slaughter
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will announce the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on religious slaughter.

  Mr. MacGregor
  With my ministerial colleagues responsible for agriculture in Great Britain I have considered carefully the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on religious slaughter of animals. We have also studied the many comments on the report which have been made by interested organisations and individuals.

  Fifteen of the Council's recommendations were directed to improving the methods and procedures for religious slaughter. We are determined that religious slaughter must be performed humanely and we share the council's view that it must be subject to proper legislative control. We believe that the council's recommendations will provide substantial safeguards for animal welfare, and we shall therefore implement all 15 of these recommendations.

  In particular we shall ban the use of the casting pen for cattle. This will he an important new welfare advance.
  406
  Inversion in a casting pen imposes discomfort and stress on cattle and the prohibition of this procedure will be widely welcomed. The ban will take effect two years after the necessary legislation has been made. In addition, in line with the council's 15 recommendations, there will be new statutory rules for the handling of animals prior to and after slaughter and for the equipment used. We shall extend the existing requirements for the licensing of premises and slaughtermen to ensure that the new standards can be properly enforced.

  A paper containing our detailed proposals for implementation of the FAWC recommendations is being issued to interested organisations today; a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The interested organisations will be consulted on the draft statutory instrument required to give effect to these decisions; it will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

  The abolition of casting cattle is a substantial change in established Jewish practice and was not easy for the Jewish authorities to accept under their religious law. My right hon. Friends and I appreciate their readiness to overcome the difficulties they found and so to accept the change.

  In addition, we have considered carefully the exemption which the legislation provides for the Jewish and Muslim communities from the requirement to stun animals before slaughter. The arguments for and against this exemption are those of religious belief and of animal welfare, both issues of great importance to those who have expressed views to us.

  From their studies the Council concluded that the Jewish and Muslim communities should be required to develop alternative arrangements for slaughter, in order that the exemption from stunning could be repealed. In response to this recommendation, we have explored in detail with leaders of the Jewish and Muslim communities their slaughter requirements and arranged for them to consider very carefully the scope for removal of the exemption from stunning. They have co-operated fully in these discussions.

  The religious communities have made clear that elements of their slaughter requirements are fundamental obligations, forming part of their religious law which it is not open to them to alter. They have also rejected the council's assessment of the welfare implications of religious slaughter.

  I can well understand why the council should recommend that the interest of the animals would best be safeguarded by ensuring efficient stunning prior to slaughter, including slaughter by decapitation. However the Government has to recognise the serious implications for the religious communities if they were no longer allowed to prepare meat as their faiths require. We do not believe that we would be justified in imposing such a burden on these communities. We do not therefore propose to ask Parliament to reverse the attitude which it has taken to this issue in the past.

  We have also considered carefully the recommendation that cuts of meat from religiously slaughtered animals

  407
  should be labelled down to the point of retail sale. We have concluded that a statutory requirement for labelling is not a practical proposition. There would be serious difficulties in administration and enforcement. Moreover, our freedom unilaterally to introduce additional mandatory labelling requirements is severely constrained by EC food labelling law. I am however writing to the religious communities to ask them to take note of the concern expressed by many on this subject, and am asking them to take all steps open to them to minimise the amount of meat produced by religious methods which is diverted from the religious market.

  I wish to record the appreciation of my colleagues and myself of the work undertaken by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on this complex subject. Our decisions were particularly difficult. The fact that over the years we have accepted so many of the recommendations in the wide range of reports which the council has made indicates the value we place on its advice.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm visits have been made by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in total this year to date, and in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total number of farm visits made by the Health and Safety Executive Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate for the past five yeas is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  29,591

  1983–84

  27,255

  1984–85

  29,468

  1985–86

  30,562

  1986–87

  30,605

  Figures for this year so far are not yet available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of public funding devoted to monitoring and enforcing safety legislation in agriculture by the Health and Safety Executive; what proportion is devoted separately to monitoring and enforcing legislation regarding pesticides use; and if he will give the relevant information for each of the last five years and the projection for 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  The salary budget for the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate for each of the last five years is as follows:

  NHS Community Psychiatric Nursing Staff (Mental Illness)

  Whole-time equivalent

  Region

  30 September 1982

  30 September 1983

  30 September 1984

  30 September 1985

  30 September 1986

  Northern

  70

  72

  95

  121

  158

  Yorkshire

  73

  90

  132

  167

  199

  Trent

  112

  124

  175

  215

  260

  East Anglian

  47

  52

  88

  101

  106

  North West Thames

  99

  108

  123

  163

  168

  North East Thames

  111

  108

  132

  140

  137

  South East Thames

  50

  80

  147

  163

  208

  South West Thames

  137

  134

  165

  207

  209

  408

  Financial Year

  Salary Budget £

  1983–84

  2,835,000

  1984–85

  2,972,000

  1985–86

  3,092,000

  1986–87

  3,322,000

  1987–88

  3,472,000

  The budget for 1988–89 is not yet available.

  The monitoring and enforcement of pesticides legislation is undertaken as part of the agricultural inspecorate's overall work programme and no separate budget allocation is made.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Health and Safety Executive inspectors are presently engaged in monitoring and enforcing existing legislation with regard to the use of pesticides; how many farm visits have been made this year to date; and how does this information compare with 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 1 October 1987 the Health and Safety Executive employed 142 agricultural inspectors and 528 factory inspectors in the field. Their duties include responsibility for pesticide safety. Figures for the number of farm visits made since 1 April 1987 to date are not yet available. On 1 October 1986, 156 agricultural inspectors and 543 factory inspectors were employed in the field. Agricultural inspectors made 30,605 visits to farms during 1986–87. A recruitment competition for factory and agricultural inspectors has just started.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the annual Christmas bonus paid to pensioners from £10 to £20 in the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  An order setting the 1987 Christmas bonus at £10 was approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses in July.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in each health region in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures relating to all NHS staff in community mental illness nursing are shown in the table:
  409

  Region

  30 September 1982

  30 September 1983

  30 September 1984

  30 September 1985

  30 September 1986

  Wesscx

  105

  113

  137

  166

  176

  Oxford

  72

  76

  86

  114

  122

  South Western

  103

  115

  127

  143

  147

  West Midlands

  66

  92

  155

  239

  255

  Mersey

  95

  116

  124

  148

  156

  North Western

  94

  148

  195

  220

  228

  London PG SHAs

  5

  5

  2

  3

  2

  England

  1,237

  1,432

  1,882

  2,309

  2,532

  Source: DHSS (SR7) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Note: All figures independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what funds have been specifically earmarked for the care of the mentally ill following the closure of mental hospitals in each health region in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks as it is not centrally collected. My hon. Friend may like to seek information from any individual regional health authority in whose area there has been such a closure.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received on the provisions of community care for patients suffering from schizophrenic psychosis discharged from National Health Service mental illness hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  We receive representations from time to time about the quality of community care for those people discharged from hospital following treatment for schizophrenia.

  The effectiveness of modern treatment means that patients are usually well enough, and prefer, to leave after a short stay in hospital, and to receive further treatment on an out-patient or day-patient basis. We are very conscious that the patient when at home needs good quality support. Studies have shown that in many places the quality of support is patchy and we will not be satisfied until we see evidence of a high level of support everywhere. We emphasise the importance of the professional team agreeing an individual care plan with the patient and carers at the time of discharge.

  Community care services to mentally ill people are still in the process of development, as my hon. Friend will see from the rapid expansion of the community psychiatric nursing service. Health authorities have been asked to make the needs of this group a priority. More needs to be done both in terms of the range, quality and distribution of facilities and in the co-ordination between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors which collectively provide the services. Sir Roy Griffiths is conducting a review on community care and will report around the end of the year on how it can be made more effective.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychosis and subsequently taken by the police under section to hospital have been refused admission in each health region in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals, after a main diagnosis of schizophrenic
  410
  psychosis, having been proved vulnerable boarders, subsequently became voluntary boarders in each of the last five years in each health region.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am sorry I cannot give my hon. Friend the information he seeks, as it is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance his Department gives to mental illness hospitals on the retention of patients whose condition is unlikely to improve; and what is the current policy in each health region.

  Mrs. Currie
  In our policy paper on mental illness services (Cmnd. 9674) we advised health authorities that every district will require long-stay accommodation for those patients whose psychiatrists find that discharge would not be in the patient's interest. The paper says:"Patients who would he better off outside hospital should have a planned discharge to suitable care even if no closure is foreseen; patients who are better off in in-patient care should continue to receive such care, by a transfer if necessary, even if a closure is planned."
  I believe all regional health authorities' policies are in line with this guidance.

  Abortions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of abortions on nonresident women in the latest year for which figures arc available were performed under ground 2 of the Abortion Act.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table.

  Percentage of abortions performed on non-resident women under Ground 2 of the 1967 Abortion Act, England and Wales 1986

  Total notification of abortions to nonresident women

  Mentions of Ground 2

  Percentage

  (a)

  (b)

  (b) of (a)

  24,667

  24,633

  99·9

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list the numbers of abortions carried out at 18 weeks and over on non-resident and resident women together with the numbers and percentages of such women aged under 18 years, 18 to 40 years and over 40 years, for the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) if he will list the numbers of abortions carried out below 18 weeks on non-resident and resident women, together with the numbers and percentages of such women aged under 18 years, 18 to 40 years and over 40 years, for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table:
  411

  Notifications of Abortions performed in England and Wales on resident and non-resident Women by age of Mother and gestation weeks, 1986

  Age of Mother (Years)

  Total

  0–17

  18–40

  41 and over

  Unknown

  GESTATION WEEKS

  Residents

  All weeks number

  147,619

  18,378

  125,886

  3,333

  22

  Percentage

  100

  12·4

  85·3

  2·3

  1

  0–17 weeks

  Number

  143,025

  17,440

  122,322

  3,241

  —

  Percentage

  100

  12·2

  85·5

  2·3

  —

  18 weeks and over

  Number

  4,594

  938

  3,564

  92

  —

  Percentage

  100

  20·4

  77·6

  2

  —

  Non-residents

  All weeks number

  24,667

  1,638

  22,228

  801

  —

  Percentage

  100

  6·6

  90·1

  3·3

  —

  0–17 weeks

  Number

  20,979

  1,129

  19,144

  706

  —

  Percentage

  100

  5·4

  91·3

  3·4

  —

  18 weeks and over

  Number

  3,688

  509

  3,084

  95

  —

  Percentage

  100

  13·8

  83·6

  2·6

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has plans to seek to amend abortion legislation in the light of the report of the fourth conference of the International Right To Life Federation in Zagreb, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Newton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Emergency Alarm Systems
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how much of the current expenditure by his Department on housing benefit is accounted for by charges for emergency alarm systems, and what was this figure in 1986, 1985 and 1984;

  (2) how many people are estimated to use emergency alarm systems; and how many emergency alarm systems are fitted in dwellings that are not classified as sheltered.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested on charges is not available, nor do we have a reliable basis for an estimate of the number of people who use emergency alarm systems.

  Elderly, Sick and Disabled Persons (Accommodation)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the accommodation referred to in deposited paper 3042, page 111, as specifically intended for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled persons includes (i) property that is owned by elderly, sick or disabled persons, (ii) accommodation that is not officially recognised as sheltered accommodation and (iii) accommodation that has not been physically altered specifically for elderly, sick or disabled persons.

  Mr. Portillo
  The intention of the draft housing benefits regulations published in May 1987, to which the hon. Member refers, is that the costs of an emergency alarm system which a tenant has no choice but to meet should be eligible for housing benefit where the system is provided 412
  either in accommodation, such as sheltered housing, which has been specially designed or adapted for elderly, sick or disabled people, or in accommodation that is particularly suitable for such people. The local authority associations are currently being consulted on amendments to the draft regulations for the reformed housing benefit scheme which, among other things, will make this intention clear. Help for owner-occupiers with the costs of emergency alarm systems will be available under the income support scheme, using the same criteria.

  Nursing Homes (NHS Staff)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what regulations have been issued regarding serving National Health Service staff becoming involved in private nursing homes to which patients, originally under their care, are transferred.

  Mrs. Currie
  None. This is a matter for health authorities to determine locally in the light of individual circumstances. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind he may like to consult the health authority concerned.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has about the health risks and other possible damage to people and food production which further deterioration in the ozone layer would bring about.

  Mrs. Currie
  Any reduction in the ozone layer would allow a greater amount of ultra-violet light to penetrate to ground level. However, other factors, such as latitude and degree of cloud cover, are normally the major determinants of ultra-violet light levels in a given area. The implcation for health of increased exposure to ultra-violet light is of an increase in the risk of skin cancer on exposed parts of the body. The extent of deliberate exposure of
  413
  untanned and unprotected skin directly to sunlight is believed to be the most important factor determining the risk of skin cancer to an individual in any given area.

  Food production is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers of speech therapists employed in England and Scotland for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures for England are shown in the table. Figures for Scotland are matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  NHS Speech therapists as at 30 September: England

  Year

  Whole-time equivalent

  1982

  1,900

  1983

  1,970

  1984

  2,150

  1985

  2,340

  1986

  2,510

  Note: All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalent.

  Source: DHSS Annual census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  These figures reflect a 32 per cent. increase in whole-time equivalent staff employed in the years in question.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to improve the provision of speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for individual health authorities to determine the appropriate level of provision of their speech therapy services, having regard to local circumstances, competing priorities and available resources. The numbers of speech therapists employed has risen by nearly 50 per cent. since 1979 and the expenditure on speech therapy services has also increased at a much faster rate than the general increase in National Health Service expenditure.

  Family Income Supplement
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received regarding the proposed changes in the family income supplement rules from 1 April 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Family income supplement will be replaced by the new family credit scheme in April 1988. The change has been widely welcomed as a major improvement in the help available to low income working families with children, and has been extensively debated both in Parliament and more widely.

  Benefits
  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding the level of support, following their disentitlement to supplementary benefit. for the dependants of unemployed heads of households who take up full-time training.

  Mr. Portillo
  Unemployment or supplementary benefit for both a claimant and his dependents is payable only if 414
  an unemployed person can demonstrate that he or she is available for employment. It follows that the Government's general policy towards unemployed persons who embark on a course of training or study is that their financial support should be the responsibility of the employer, local education authority or other organisation concerned. This policy continues that applied during previous administrations.

  There is one exception to the availability rule for unemployed people in that a supplementary benefit claimant who is receiving a Government training allowance—usually from the Manpower Services Commission—is exempt from the requirement to be available for work. This enables the training allowance to be topped up by supplementary benefit if the allowance is insufficient for the trainee's requirements. Trainees who cease to be entitled to supplementary benefit are still able to claim other income-related benefits (such as refunds, exemption from prescription charges, housing benefit, welfare foods) in respect of themselves and their dependants and, of course, child benefit, depending on their individual circumstances.

  Maternity Care
  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current provision of maternity care in each of the health authorities in the north-west.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available information held centrally on provision for maternity care in districts in the North Western regional health authority is contained in the table.

  North Western regional health authority, average daily available beds in the maternity1 sector by district health authority, 1986

  District health authority

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Percentage occupancy

  Lancaster

  47·6

  33·6

  70·6

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  90·0

  67·3

  74·8

  Preston

  93·9

  64·8

  69·0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  123·0

  71·5

  58·1

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  80·3

  58·6

  73·0

  West Lancashire

  34·0

  35·8

  75·9

  Chorley and South Ribble

  25·9

  9·6

  37·1

  Bolton

  108·0

  73·0

  67·6

  Bury

  72·4

  41·2

  56·9

  North Manchester

  66·4

  48·7

  73·3

  Central Manchester

  125·0

  87·5

  70·0

  South Manchester

  151·8

  84·5

  55·7

  Oldham

  86·5

  56·7

  65·5

  Rochdale

  51·4

  29·3

  57·0

  Salford

  92·6

  63·4

  68·5

  Stockport

  93·7

  66·8

  71·3

  Teeside and Glossop

  82·2

  59·2

  72·0

  Traflbrd

  41·1

  28·8

  70·1

  Wigan

  106·2

  63·4

  59·7

  Total

  1,572·0

  1,033·7

  65·8

  1 Obstetrics and GP maternity specialties.

  If the hon. Member seeks more recent information, or has more detailed local enquiries, he may wish to approach the chairman of the North Western regional health authority.

  North-Western Health Authorities
  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities in the north-west are proposing to reduce clinical services or close facilities in 1987–88 or 1988–89 to provide a balanced budget.

  Mrs. Currie
  Revenue expenditure by north-western regional health authority on hospital and community health services has increased in real terms by some 24 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1986–87. This has enabled substantial increases between 1978 and 1986 in the numbers of patients treated in the region: 22 per cent. more in-patients, 16 per cent. more out-patients and 85 per cent. more day cases. The key to maintaining and building on this success is sound resource management by district health authorities, within balanced budgets. The hon. Member may wish to address his detailed inquiries, about how this is achieved, to the chairman of the north-western regional health authority, which is responsible for ensuring north-western district health authorities balance their budgets.

  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the projected year-end situation for each of the health authorities in the north-west on an income/expenditure basis.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not collected on an in-year basis and the annual accounts of health authorities for 1987–88 are not due for submission to our department until the end of June 1988.

  The hon. Member may wish to approach the chairman of the north-west regional health authority, who may be able to assist with the information he seeks.

  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost of the 1987–88 pay awards to date of the north-west health authorities; and how this cost compares with the funding allocated by his Department.

  Mrs. Currie
  Information is not available centrally on the cost of pay awards by district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to ask the chairman of the northwestern regional health authority for this information.

  North-western RHA's share of the additional resources allocated following this year's pay review body awards to nurses, doctors and allied professions was £22·9 million. It was for the regional health authority to determine how those funds should be distributed amongst its districts.

  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cumulative cost of pay award underfunding over the past three years in each of the health authorities in the north-west.

  Mrs. Currie
  The information requested is not available. Health authorities operate within the cash planning system which means that they are expected to met all pay and price increases and develop services from within the total resources available to them. Between 1983–84 and 1986–87 north-western regional health authority's gross revenue expenditure increased by 5·1 per cent. in real terms. In 1987–88 the region has received a further real terms increase of 3·7 per cent.

  Regional Health Authorities (Creditors)
  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance his Department issues to regional
  416
  health authorities about the acceptable level of creditors for a health authority to have in terms of (a) the number of weeks of creditors and (b) the percentage of trade creditors to allocation; and what were those levels for the past three years and projections for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Department has issued no specific guidance on an acceptable level of creditors, but health authorities are expected to keep these within the bounds of financial prudence.

  The Department does not collect in-year information on creditor balances and any attempt at estimates for 1987–88 or 1988–89 would be purely speculative.

  Following are figures for the past three years derived from the summarised accounts of health authorities in England:

  Regional and District Health Authorities1

  Column (a) Total creditors as at 31 March related to total expenditure for the year

  Column (b) "Other" revenue creditors as at SI March related to total revenue allocation for the year

  Weeks

  per cent.

  1984–85

  2·5

  3·2

  1985–86

  2·6

  3·3

  1986–87

  2·8

  3·7

  1 Includes the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Notes:

  1. the figures for 1986–87 are based on provisional (that is, as yet unaudited) information.

  2. The figures in column (a) cover revenue and capital creditor balances and expenditure.

  3. "Other" revenue creditors includes mainly trade creditors which are not separately identified in the annual accounts of health authorities.

  Peto Institute, Budapest
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's assessment of the work being undertaken in the Peto Institute, Budapest; and if he will indicate the level of research resources being made available for parallel treatment in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are aware of the favourable reports on the work being undertaken at the Peto Institute and the claims made for the success of the treatment. However as yet no proper evaluation of the benefits of conductive education has been undertaken either here or abroad. The Department of Education and Science has agreed to make available over a period of five years £326,000 in support of the evaluation of the conductive education project being established in Birmingham by the National Foundation for Conductive Education.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's policy on the condition popularly known as ME; if he will estimate the number of sufferers; what are the current totals of research expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is a distressing complaint for which there is at present no agreed medical treatment. Data on incidence are not held centrally. The Department does not currently fund
  417
  research in this field. Research is taking place at St. Mary's, Paddington. Seriological surveillance studies supported by the Scottish Home and Health Department at the Regional Virus Laboratory, Ruchill hospital, Glasgow, may also throw light on this condition. I understand that good progress on causation has been made by a combined team from the Royal Free and St. Thomas's hospitals.

  Other current research into antiviral agents, allergies and immunological mechanisms may also improve knowledge of ME. The Medical Research Council is the main Government agency for the promotion of medical and biological research. Information about total expenditure on research in this field is not held centrally.

  Immunisation Officers
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services which district health authorities have appointed an officer to be accountable for immunisation performance in that district.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am pleased to record that all except two authorities, which are making arrangements to do so, have made such appointments.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Mr. Hood
  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 Clydesdale constituency for each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally by constituency area.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  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 East Lothian in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally. The numbers of Scottish Special Housing Association dwellings in the area of East Lothian district council are set out below.

  At 31 March

  Number of dwellings

  1979

  1,231

  1980

  1,275

  1981

  1,287

  1982

  1,275

  1983

  1,256

  1984

  1,225

  1985

  1,148

  1986

  1,156

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.
  418
  Mr. Rifkind
  A fee of £10 per registry entry has been set for access under section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1984; there are at present 72 register entries for the Scottish Office; the total cost to a data subject for access to all register entries would therefore be £720.

  Health Care
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reached a decision as to whether to accept the conclusion of the Sharpen report on health care spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 28 October 1987.

  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Sharpen report on health care spending will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 26 October 1987.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Home Robertson
  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 inpatient beds in East Lothian and (ii) 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.

  Mr. Doran
  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 Aberdeen, South constituency and (ii) the number of National Health Service staff, in terms of full-time equivalents.

  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of National Health Service in-patient beds in Cunninghame. North constituency since 1978.

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

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department is doing to reduce waiting times for ear, nose and throat surgery in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I regard reduction of the length of time patients have to wait for in-patient treatment or consultations as one of the most urgent tasks facing the Health Service. I have therefore established a working group within my Department, which is currently studying various methods of reducing waiting lists and waiting times and I have impressed on health boards the importance of the task.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many of the Clydesdale patients on 1984, 1985 and 1986 waiting lists for more than three months were over 60 years of age;
  419
  (2) how many patients in Clydesdale in need of operations have been asked to wait due to lack of medical and hospital facilities for more than three months for each year since 1974.

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

  Hospital Patients (Early Discharge)
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department is doing to encourage early discharge from hospital following surgical procedures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Explicit advice on detailed aspects of clinical practice is not normally given by the Department but by the royal colleges and other sources within the profession itself. More general advice is given in, for example, reports from the National Medical Consultative Committee which are published through the Scottish Health Service Planning Council and the Department. The recently published report on the management of orthopaedic services in Scotland is an example of this.

  The appropriate use of clinical resources of all kinds including acute post-operative care is a central aspect of the work of the clinical resource use group set up recently under the chairmanship of the chief medical officer with members drawn from a number of professional medical fields.

  Medical Staffing
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the Shaw report on medical staffing in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the report "Staffing the Service—The Next Decade" will be presented to the Scottish Home and Health Department and to the Scottish joint consultants committee and published around the middle of December.

  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to retaining the social remit of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board after privatisation.

  Mr. Lang
  I am giving this matter close consideration.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Crown Estate Commissioners charge rent for pipes leading into the sea emanating from and owned by Dounreay, Windscale and Hunterston nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the Crown Estate Commissioners that they have received or are receiving payments in respect of pipelines and associated works on the seabed at Dounreay, Sellafield (formerly Windscale) and Hunterston nuclear establishments.

  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total amounts paid to projects
  420
  in the Western Isles by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in each year since 1979 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, based on 1986–87 prices, showing the percentage changes in payments between years.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure approved by the Highlands and Islands Development Board on businesses and projects in the Western Isles is as follows:

  (a) Cash terms

  (b) 1987 prices

  £000s

  per cent, change

  £000s

  per cent, change

  1979

  2,045

  —

  3,681

  —

  1980

  1,719

  -15·9

  2,623

  -28·8

  1981

  3,763

  +118·9

  5,132

  +95·7

  1982

  3,316

  -11·9

  4,164

  -18·9

  1983

  4,500

  +35·7

  5,402

  +29·8

  1984

  4,254

  -5·5

  4,865

  -10·0

  1985

  7,159

  +68·3

  7,717

  +58·6

  1986

  3,564

  -50·2

  3,715

  -51·9

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Macdonald
  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 inpatient beds in the Western Isles 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.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a working party to co-ordinate all the appropriate statutory bodies and local authorities involved in the development of a suitable tourist stopping place on the Al trunk route where it crosses the English/Scottish border at Dumbarton toll in Berwickshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  A1 (Cockburghton)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will sanction the use of double white lines to prohibit overtaking throughout the length of Cockburghton at the A1 as a temporary safety measure pending the realignment of the main road; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have reviewed the earlier decision that the white lines near the Cockburnspath junction should not be extended and, although the usual criteria are not met, I have decided that the continuous double white lines down the centre of the road should be continued past the village and just beyond the brow of the hill on the north side.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects to announce a date for the public inquiry into the proposed route for the Al realignment at Cockburghton in Berwickshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Preparations are being made for an inquiry to consider objections to the A1 Tower to Dunglass diversion orders. I expect this to be held in early 1988.

  Local Councillors (Allowances and Expenses)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now authorise a full scale review of members allowances and expenses for serving councillors in local government in Scotland, with particular reference to the particular expenses involved in travelling to rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The level of travel and subsistence allowances for councillors is reviewed each year as a matter of routine. The views of the local authority associations, as expressed from time to time, are taken into account in these reviews. The Government are at present considering the Widdicombe committee's recommendations on councillors' remuneration.

  Forestry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he has any plans to change the consultation procedures undertaken by the Forestry Commission prior to approving planting applications under the forestry grant scheme;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the revised composition of regional advisory committees involved in the Forestry Commission process of consultation in approving planting grants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The consultation procedures are refined from time to time to meet changing circumstances.

  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be in a position soon to make a statement to the House on the composition and procedures of the regional advisory committees.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider setting up a system of planting licences to replace the existing forestry grant scheme administered by the Forestry Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is not persuaded that this is necessary or desirable.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all those voluntary bodies that may be consulted by the statutory authorities involved in the existing consultation procedures in the forestry grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory authorities may consult with voluntary bodies as they see fit. There is no prescribed list of bodies to be consulted.

  Passenger Ferries
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications of suggested alterations to stability criteria for passenger ferries following the Zeebrugge disaster for vessels operated by Caledonian MacBrayne and P and O from and between Scottish ports; and what funds are available for him to support the replacement and modification of ferries serving the Scottish islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for marine safety and for consideration of the recommendations of the Zeebrugge inquiry report rest with the 422
  Secretary of State for Transport. He is at present consulting all ferry operators, including Caledonian MacBrayne and P and O, on these recommendations, including those involving stability. It will not be clear what the implications are for ferry operators until the results of the consultations have been considered.

  A1 (Gladsmuir)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to initiate any improvements to the A1 road at Gladsmuir following the meeting between the acting Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for East Lothian on 8 October.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the meeting on 8 October I proposed that a scheme of hatching and right-hand turning lanes be provided at Gladsmuir on the Al. Arrangements will be set in hand if this is the wish of local people.

  Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing (a) the number of people on housing waiting lists, (b) the number of new public sector houses built, (c) the number of new private sector houses built, (d) the number of new lets and re-lets from waiting lists and (e) the number of people housed under the homeless persons legislation in each district and islands area in 1978–79 and in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consistent reliable information on the number of people on housing waiting lists and the number of lets and re-lets from waiting lists is not available. The table below shows the numbers of new public and private sector dwellings completed in the years 1978–79 and 1985–86, the latest year for which figures are available, together with the numbers of applicants housed in permanent or temporary accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 in those years.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list actions taken by the Government to improve the choice of rented accommodation for people in Scotland since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's commitment to extending choice for those who wish to rent is reflected by action taken to stimulate housing provision in both the public and private sectors. Total gross investment in Scottish public sector housing has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Within this total, capital allocations to local authorities have risen by 82 per cent., or £188 million, over the last three years. Substantially increased resources have been made available to the housing association movement for which over £100 million has been provided in each of the last six years, and where 30,000 new tenancies have been created. Other action taken by the Government includes the introduction of short tenancies, under part IV of the Tenants' Rights Etc (Scotland) Act 1980, to stimulate the supply of accommodation to rent in the private sector. The Local Government Bill at present before Parliament includes provisions to give Scottish local authorities new powers to give financial assistance to private landlords, including housing associations, to encourage the provision of housing for rent.
  423

  New dwellings completed and applicants housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, 1978–79 and 1985–86—Scotland

  Numbers

  New dwellings completed

  1978–79

  1985–86

  Applicants housed

  Public sector

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Private sector

  1978–79

  1985–86

  Berwickshire

  16

  12

  12

  26

  18

  4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  114

  31

  0

  62

  23

  11

  Roxburgh

  26

  22

  8

  31

  24

  17

  Tweeddale

  39

  13

  0

  56

  22

  ..

  Clackmannan

  32

  111

  30

  53

  167

  273

  Falkirk

  158

  496

  45

  428

  202

  1,474

  Stirling

  91

  324

  39

  179

  266

  ..

  Annandale and Eskdale

  233

  61

  34

  60

  22

  32

  Nithsdale

  71

  216

  128

  221

  117

  136

  Stewartry

  49

  78

  52

  47

  30

  62

  Wigtown

  34

  103

  109

  67

  67

  43

  Dunfermline

  132

  367

  167

  274

  317

  383

  Kirkcaldy

  484

  295

  149

  336

  227

  385

  North East Fife

  107

  211

  68

  205

  120

  301

  Aberdeen

  1,070

  658

  250

  858

  268

  908

  Banff and Buchan

  488

  242

  95

  181

  51

  29

  Gordon

  159

  690

  138

  307

  20

  44

  Kincardine and Deeside

  57

  266

  187

  409

  16

  18

  Moray

  48

  252

  97

  206

  54

  158

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  36

  0

  63

  16

  ..

  Caithness

  126

  39

  36

  57

  22

  2

  Inverness

  310

  442

  194

  374

  63

  129

  Lochaber

  47

  43

  28

  17

  20

  25

  Nairn

  26

  67

  20

  19

  21

  16

  Ross and Cromarty

  127

  170

  45

  189

  27

  14

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  42

  52

  17

  14

  ..

  Sutherland

  26

  19

  50

  25

  2

  0

  East Lothian

  110

  153

  123

  347

  154

  389

  Edinburgh

  574

  1,685

  67

  1,710

  386

  926

  Midlothian

  2

  174

  64

  64

  56

  65

  West Lothian

  477

  601

  91

  556

  277

  169

  Argyll and Bute

  145

  124

  43

  128

  155

  144

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  66

  207

  0

  93

  5

  40

  Clydebank

  21

  42

  28

  110

  114

  214

  Clydesdale

  31

  303

  30

  136

  76

  38

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  398

  292

  6

  199

  101

  198

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  92

  35

  23

  60

  41

  35

  Cunninghame

  524

  326

  72

  411

  277

  268

  Dumbarton

  4

  240

  14

  187

  236

  282

  East Kilbride

  29

  78

  19

  406

  199

  247

  Eastwood

  0

  213

  54

  412

  5

  7

  Glasgow

  1,448

  304

  302

  1,697

  1,931

  2,148

  Hamilton

  147

  235

  12

  281

  305

  313

  Inverclyde

  217

  95

  74

  205

  176

  214

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  175

  247

  30

  261

  48

  149

  Kyle and Carrick

  75

  636

  58

  178

  188

  230

  Monklands

  93

  315

  0

  205

  366

  144

  Motherwell

  160

  231

  55

  310

  494

  539

  Renfrew

  455

  427

  28

  642

  696

  1,041

  Strathkelvin

  242

  557

  6

  148

  155

  145

  Angus

  123

  292

  132

  90

  148

  131

  Dundee

  166

  240

  78

  196

  264

  601

  Perth and Kinross

  102

  445

  0

  456

  185

  342

  Orkney Islands

  30

  59

  8

  35

  4

  11

  Shetland Islands

  90

  96

  30

  112

  37

  79

  Western Isles

  222

  160

  70

  106

  54

  25

  .. Not available.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households are overcrowded in each district and islands area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on overcrowding under part VII of the Housing (Scotland)424
  Act 1987 is not available centrally. Limited information on number of persons per room is available from the census 1981 Scotland housing and household report, table 33 "Small area statistics".
  425

  New dwellings completed and applicants housed under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, 1978–79 and 1985–86—Scotland

  Numbers

  New dwellings completed

  Applicants housed

  1978–79

  1985–86

  1978–79

  1985–86

  Public sector

  Private sector

  Public sector

  Private sector

  Berwickshire

  16

  12

  12

  26

  18

  4

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  114

  31

  0

  62

  23

  11

  Roxburgh

  26

  22

  8

  31

  24

  17

  Tweeddale

  39

  13

  0

  56

  22

  n.a.

  Clackmannan

  32

  111

  30

  53

  167

  273

  Falkirk

  158

  496

  45

  428

  202

  1,474

  Stirling

  91

  324

  39

  179

  266

  n.a.

  Annandale and Eskdale

  233

  61

  34

  60

  22

  32

  Nithsdale

  71

  216

  128

  221

  117

  136

  Stewartry

  49

  78

  52

  47

  30

  62

  Wigtown

  34

  103

  109

  67

  67

  43

  Dunfermline

  132

  367

  167

  274

  317

  383

  Kirkcaldy

  484

  295

  149

  336

  227

  385

  North East Fife

  107

  211

  68

  205

  120

  301

  Aberdeen

  1,070

  658

  250

  858

  268

  908

  Banff and Buchan

  488

  242

  95

  181

  51

  29

  Gordon

  159

  690

  138

  307

  20

  44

  Kincardine and Deeside

  57

  266

  187

  409

  16

  18

  Moray

  48

  252

  97

  206

  54

  158

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0

  36

  0

  63

  16

  n.a.

  Caithness

  126

  39

  36

  57

  22

  2

  Inverness

  310

  442

  194

  374

  63

  129

  Lochaber

  47

  43

  28

  17

  20

  25

  Nairn

  26

  67

  20

  19

  21

  16

  Ross and Cromarty

  127

  170

  45

  189

  27

  14

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0

  42

  52

  17

  14

  n.a.

  Sutherland

  26

  19

  50

  25

  2

  0

  East Lothian

  110

  153

  123

  347

  154

  389

  Edinburgh

  574

  1,685

  67

  1,710

  386

  926

  Midlothian

  2

  174

  64

  64

  56

  65

  West Lothian

  477

  601

  91

  556

  277

  169

  Argyll and Bute

  145

  124

  43

  128

  155

  144

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  66

  207

  0

  93

  5

  40

  Clyedebank

  21

  42

  28

  110

  114

  214

  Clydesdale

  31

  303

  30

  136

  76

  38

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  398

  292

  6

  199

  101

  198

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  92

  35

  23

  60

  41

  35

  Cunninghame

  524

  326

  72

  411

  277

  268

  Dumbarton

  4

  240

  14

  187

  236

  282

  East Kilbride

  29

  78

  19

  406

  199

  247

  Eastwood

  0

  213

  54

  412

  5

  7

  Glasgow

  1,448

  304

  302

  1,697

  1,931

  2,148

  Hamilton

  147

  235

  12

  281

  305

  313

  Inverclyde

  217

  95

  74

  205

  176

  214

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  175

  247

  30

  261

  48

  149

  Kyle and Carrick

  75

  636

  58

  178

  188

  230

  Monklands

  93

  315

  0

  205

  366

  144

  Motherwell

  160

  231

  55

  310

  494

  539

  Renfrew

  455

  427

  28

  642

  696

  1,041

  Strathkelvin

  242

  557

  6

  148

  155

  145

  Angus

  123

  292

  132

  90

  148

  131

  Dundee

  166

  240

  78

  196

  264

  401

  Perth and Kinross

  102

  445

  9

  456

  185

  342

  Orkney Islands

  30

  59

  8

  35

  4

  11

  Shetland Islands

  30

  96

  30

  112

  37

  19

  Western Isles

  222

  160

  70

  106

  54

  25

  n.a.—Not available.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission a comprehensive national house condition survey in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no immediate plans to do so but am considering representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others on this subject at the present time.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest numbers for houses in need of urgent repair in Scotland.
  426
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people are on housing waiting lists in Glasgow Provan, and in the whole of the Greater Glasgow area, respectively;

  (2) what is the number of people on housing waiting lists in Scotland.
  427
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reliable and consistent information on waiting list figures is not available centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what urgent steps he is taking in order substantially to reduce the number of young unemployed in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  We shall continue with our successful policies of keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise, sustaining competitiveness in industry and strengthening the private sector, which are the key to creating a stronger economy and reducing unemployment. The guarantee of a YTS place means that no one under 18 need be unemployed. 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 (to 9,500 places in Scotland in 1987–88) and the assistance to employers through the new workers scheme will all help young people into employment. While unemployment among young people remains too high the number of unemployed claimants under 25 in Scotland has fallen substantially since the beginning of the year.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what urgent steps he is taking substantially to reduce the total number of unemployed people in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  We shall continue with our successful policies of keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise, sustaining competitiveness in industry and strengthening the private sector, which are the key to creating a stronger economy and reducing unemployment. The wide range of the Manpower Services Commission's training programmes will provide over 50,000 adult training opportunities in Scotland this year to enable many people to retrain in the skills needed today. In addition some 30,000 people in Scotland are currently gaining useful work experience in the community programme and 9,500 people will have the opportunity this year to join the enterprise allowance scheme for unemployed people setting up their own businesses. Since January 1987 unemployment in Scotland has fallen by almost 48,000.

  Local Authority Facilities
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new funds he is making available to Scottish local authorities in order to tackle the problems of street lighting and home safety, in particular for elderly people, lack of entertaining and sporting facilities, and other similar deficiencies.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 23 July my right hon. Friend announced provision for local authority current expenditure in 1988–89. This is £3,640 million, 4 per cent. above local authorities' budgets in 1987–88. There is ample scope within this generous figure for authorities to choose their own priorities for expenditure, including the services mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the most recent statistics for people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Scotland paid for by public funds;
  428
  (2) how many people are at present in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid by public funds in Glasgow, Provan and in the whole of the Greater Glasgow area, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no overall figures for the number of persons in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid out of public funds. However, it is estimated that the number of households placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation under The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 at 30 June 1987 for Scotland was approximately 400. The comparable Glasgow district figure was 124.

  Information held centrally does not identify areas other than at district council level or their aggregates.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the impact on voter registration of the implementation of the poll tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made no such assessment. The implementation of the community charge system is a quite separate process from electoral registration and should have no adverse impact on it.

  Hospital Staff
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the number of full-time nurses serving in hospitals in the Clydesdale area for each year since 1974;

  (2) what was the number of full-time doctors serving in hospitals in the Clydesdale area for each year since 1974.

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

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many elderly people have been in National Health Service residential homes in Clydesdale since 1974;

  (2) how many elderly people have been in National Health Service residential homes in Scotland for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no National Health Service residential homes for the elderly.

  Retirement
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of people coming into retirement in the whole of Scotland in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Registrar General estimates that the number of people reaching pensionable age in Scotland in each of the years specified will be in the range 51,000 to 52,000.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of people coming into retirement in the Clydesdale area in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Registrar General estimates that the number of people reaching pensionable age in Clydesdale in each of the years specified will be about 550.

  Forestry Rangers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of forestry rangers employed by the Forestry Commission at each grade in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Year (as at 1 April)

  Senior Ranger (Grade 1)

  Senior Ranger (Grade 2)

  Ranger (Grade 1)

  Ranger (Grade 2)

  Trainee Ranger

  Totals

  1983

  102

  37

  15

  9

  3

  166

  1984

  105

  31

  18

  5

  3

  162

  1985

  109

  30

  12

  3

  2

  156

  1986

  115

  26

  3

  4

  3

  151

  1987

  116

  24

  1

  3

  1

  145

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the pay scales of forestry rangers working for the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following a recent review of the terms and conditions of all forestry workers, including rangers, the Forestry Commission will shortly be seeking to negotiate a revised pay structure with the trade unions concerned.

  Red Deer Stalkers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of red deer stalkers employed by the Forestry Commission at each grade, in Scotland, for each of the last five years, and the pay scale for each grade.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Commission does not employ persons to act solely as deer stalkers. Some forestry rangers carry out deer stalking as part of their duties.

  Andrew Marshall
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to appeal against the findings of Sheriff James R. Smith in the case of the Procurator Fiscal v. Andrew Marshall; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The question of an appeal against the decision of a sheriff in a criminal case is not one for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The procurator fiscal in whose name the proceedings were raised has, however, marked an appeal against the sheriff's decision and the matter will, accordingly, come before the High Court of Justiciary shortly. In the circumstances any further statement would be quite inappropriate.

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in establishing the new Macaulay land use research institute in Aberdeen, particularly with regard to its physical location on one site in Aberdeen.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The new research institute came into being on 1 April 1987. A board of governors under the chairmanship of Professor Ian Cunningham CBE has been established, and a director, Professor T J Maxwell
  430
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the following table:

  appointed. The board has given further consideration to the question of where in Aberdeen the new institute should be located, and have decided, following consultation with my Department, that location at Craigiebuckler, rather than at Bucksburn, would be preferable, and that further detailed planning on the feasibility of this should be pursued. It also considers that development at this site should be accompanied by further developments al: Glensaugh and Hartwood research stations. I have agreed that the board should proceed to develop its plans on the basis it has outlined.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many current occupants of Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses;

  (2) how many people were admitted to Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland who had previously been discharged from mental illness hospitals and units after a main diagnosis of schizophrenic psychoses in each of the last five years; and how many were recidivists.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. The number of inmates in Scottish penal establishments diagnosed as suffering from psychoses in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  88

  1983

  32

  1984

  56

  1985

  62

  1986

  63

  Mr. Goodlad
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community psychiatric nurses there have been in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not at present collected centrally. Arrangements are being made to do so as part of a more general development of manpower and personnel information systems in health boards.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give a detailed list of hospital wards serving the Clydesdale area since 1974 which have closed due to shortage of funds;

  (2) how many hospital wards serving the Clydesdale area were closed for each year since 1974;

  (3) if he will give a detailed list of hospital wards in Scotland which closed due to shortage of equipment, for each year since 1974;

  (4) if he will give a detailed list of hospital wards serving the Clydesdale area since 1974, and the detailed reasons for closure in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 October to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray).

ENVIRONMENT

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the list of the scientific organisations and individual scientists he has consulted or is consulting with regard to the problems posed by the damage inflicted to the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has established, jointly with the Meteorological Office, the stratospheric ozone review group, to advise on the effect of man-made pollutants on the ozone layer. Its members are:

  Dr. J. Pyle (University of Cambridge)—Chair

  Dr. R. Jones, Dr. A. O'Neill (Meteorological Office)

  Dr. J. Farman (British Antarctic Survey)

  Dr. H. Roscoe (University of Oxford)

  Dr. L. Gray (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory)

  Dr. S. Penkett (University of East Anglia)

  Dr. R. Cox (Harwell Laboratory)

  Dr. G. Jenkins (Department of the Environment)

  Their first report—"Stratospheric Ozone", Her Majesty's Stationery Office—was published in August this year and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he or his colleagues in the European Community or other European countries have held consultations aimed at a joint response to the problems which certain industrial and chemical activities cause to the ozone layer;

  (2) whether Her Majesty's Government are preparing a joint governmental response to the serious problems caused by damage to the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The United Kingdom, the European Community and seven other member states have signed the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. The remaining member states expect to sign by the end of the year. We are already consulting producing and using industries on how to put the provisions of the protocol into practice. In due course the Environment Council will consider those aspects which have to be implemented at Community level. At a meeting of European Environment Ministers on 25 October my noble Friend Lord Belstead suggested wider consultations between the Community and EFTA countries, and in particular closer cooperation on the protocol's provisions for regular scientific review.
  432
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what scientific advice he has received about delays in the adoption of the measures needed in order to avoid further destruction of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The assessments in the report of the stratospheric ozone review group show that, according to our current knowledge, the stringency and timetable of the measures agreed in the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer will be adequate to avoid any significant depletion of the global ozone layer. We are keeping in close touch with scientific developments and, as provided in the protocol, will keep the adequacy of the measures under review.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he is giving to British industries which produce aerosol and other similar chemicals about the damage inflicted to the ozone layer of our planet by such products.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Concern about the ozone layer is well known to industries in the United Kingdom producing and using chlorofluorocarbons—(CFCs)—and halons, chemicals which have the potential to damage the ozone layer. My Department kept in close touch with them during negotiation of the recently agreed Montreal protocol and we are now consulting them on its implementation. ICI is represented as an observer on the stratospheric ozone research group which will be watching developments closely with a view to producing a second report next year. Discussions were also held at a recent seminar organised by the Chemical Manufacturers Association in Edinburgh to review the subject of the antarctic ozone hole and related matters.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of the outcome of the meeting recently held in Canada about the problems created by the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is the Government's view that the agreement at the diplomatic conference in Montreal on 16 September of a protocol to control production and consumption of ozone layer depleting substances is a significant environmental achievement.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had talks regarding extra funding to research departments of universities on matters related to aerosols and similar products and about their impact on the ozone layer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department is funding a programme of research into stratospheric ozone, including the effects of aerosols propellants at the following establishments:

  Harwell Laboratory (laboratory Kinetics)

  University of Cambridge (Computer Modelling)

  University of Oxford (Balloon Measurements)

  British Antartic Survey (Antarctic Ozone)

  National Physical Laboratory (Instrument Development)

  Inscon (Monitoring Chlorofluorocarbons)

  In addition, there are substantial research programmes run by the Meteorological Office and Science and Engineering Research Council, with which we keep in close touch.

  Rate Support Grant Settlement
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the date for making the announcement of details in respect of the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend issued a consultation paper on 27 October setting out details of his proposals for the 1988–89 rate support grant settlement in England.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy towards fees for subject access under the terms of the Data Protection Act; how many register entries his Department has; and what would be the total cost to a data subject seeking access to personal data held under all register entries.

  Mr. Ridley
  I propose to charge a fee of £10 for subject access by members of the public. There is no current intention to charge the Department's own staff seeking access to personal data held about them as employees.

  My Department—including PSA and the Crown Suppliers—has 13 register entries, each of which covers several separate systems. In the unlikely event of a data subject requesting access to all entries, the total cost would be £130.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new companies opened up in enterprise zones throughout the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The numbers of incoming firms to the enterprise zones in the United Kingdom and, among those, the numbers of new start-ups are contained in the table1

  All incoming firms

  New start-ups

  June 1981-May 1982

  295

  165

  June 1982-May 1983

  474

  281

  June 1983-September 1984

  45

  2—

  October 1984-December 19853

  506

  2—

  1 The information from 1981 to May 1983 has been derived from the publication "Monitoring Enterprise Zones, Year Three Report" by Roger Tym and Partners 1984. From June 1983 the data was collected from the publications "Enterprise Zone Information 1983–84" and "Enterprise Zone Information 1984–85", both by the Department of the Environment. There were differences between the methods used. Thus the changes between 1981–83 and 1983–85 may be due in part to differences in definition.

  2 Data not available.

  3 The data for Belfast and Londonderry Enterprise Zones extends to September 1985.

  Figures for later years will be available shortly with the publication of "An Evaluation of the Enterprise Zone Experiment" and "Enterprise Zone Information 1985–86".

  Rating Reform
  Mr. John Evans
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consideration he has given to the implementation of the proposed poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  I have given, and continue to give, a high priority to this issue.
  434
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of the effect on the rate of electoral registration of his proposal for a poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  The basis for compiling the electoral register in England and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand that he has no proposals for changing the date for electoral registration.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply of 22 October, Official Report, column 866, he will set out the information he has about the number of domestic properties in each local authority in the rateable value bands listed in the answer.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed the available information in the Library.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the studies leading to the Green Paper Cmnd. 9714 "Paying for Local Government" which are referred to in the final paragraph of the ministerial foreword.

  Mr. Howard
  No. The conclusions arising out of the studies are contained in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government"—Cmnd. 9714.

  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total cost to date of government initiatives to promote the community charge; and if he will also supply specific figures for the cost of (a) the tours by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) and by the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, (Mr. Howard) respectively, (b) the production of the booklet entitled "Paying for Local Government" and (c) the production of a video by the same name.

  Mr. Howard
  Since the publication of our Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" in January 1986, successive Ministers have taken the usual steps to ensure that Parliament, the media and all those affected, including local businessmen and the general public, are informed about the detail of the three-part package of reforms. It is not possible to put specific figures to the costs involved.

  The three particular information exercises mentioned by the hon. Member all address the detail of the Government's proposals for local government finance as a whole, rather than focusing on the community charge.

  (a) The total cost of the regional visits made by my hon. Friend and myself, when we held discussions with leaders and officers of 20 local authorities as well as 11 meetings with local businessmen, was some £9,200, which includes the cost of back-ground panels explaining the three-part package. Some of the visits took place in association with other Government business.

  (b) Production and printing 100,000 copies of the booklet cost £16,200.

  (c) Fifty copies of the video were produced at a cost of £15,000.

  Sand and Gravel
  Sir Dudley Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal to allow

  435
  sand and gravel extraction operations have been made over the past eight years; and how many of those appeals have been allowed by him and his predecessors.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information is available only in respect of cases decided by the Secretary of State. Of the 63 sand and gravel appeals determined between 1 October 1980 and 30 September 1987, 25 were allowed.

  Falconry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of falconry licences issued during each of the last five years, giving the categories and numbers of prey species involved; and whether details are collected by his Department of the numbers of prey finally taken.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Details of the number of falconry licences issued in the past five years and of the prey species involved are set out in the table. All licensees are required to submit returns of numbers of prey taken.

  England and Wales

  Year

  Licences issued

  Prey species involved

  Number authorised

  Birds actually taken

  1983

  66

  Blackbird

  1,080

  319

  Skylark

  200

  37

  Meadow Pipit

  65

  21

  Moorhen

  112

  14

  Song Thrush

  75

  11

  Partridge

  55

  7

  Coot

  46

  5

  Pheasant

  40

  0

  1984

  68

  Blackbird

  917

  198

  Skylark

  437

  120

  Meadow Pipit

  100

  17

  Song Thrush

  60

  6

  1985

  68

  Blackbird

  978

  246

  Skylark

  620

  179

  Meadow Pipit

  110

  12

  Moorhen

  10

  3

  Song Thrush

  120

  15

  Blackheaded Gull

  68

  17

  Lapwing

  15

  1

  1986

  69

  Blackbird

  921

  222

  Skylark

  600

  163

  Meadow Pipit

  95

  26

  Song Thrush

  155

  7

  Moorhen

  10

  0

  Blackheaded Gull

  150

  60

  Fieldfare

  10

  0

  Redwing

  10

  0

  1987

  61

  Blackbird

  858

  Skylark

  695

  160

  Meadow Pipit

  70

  Song Thrush

  90

  Blackheaded Gull

  50

  Fieldfare

  15

  Redwing

  10

  1 Only report received to date.

  Scotland

  Year

  Licences issued

  Prey species involved

  Number authorised

  Birds actually taken

  1983

  5

  Blackbird

  4

  2

  Skylark

  10

  10

  Thrush

  10

  0

  436

  Year

  Licences issued

  Prey species involved

  Number authorised

  Birds actually taken

  1984

  6

  Blackbird

  80

  14

  Thrush

  20

  0

  1985

  3

  Blackbird

  70

  0

  Skylark

  90

  43

  Meadow Pipit

  20

  5

  Thrush

  5

  0

  1986

  3

  Skylark

  70

  35

  Meadow Pipit

  20

  0

  1987

  5

  Blackbird

  75

  1

  Skylark

  65

  1 None reported.

  Sewage
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will detail resources needed to bring up to the required standards the sewage systems in the whole of the United Kingdom;

  (2) what plans he has to tackle the crisis in British sewage systems in the event of privatisation of water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The regional water authorities are spending enough on the renewal and replacement of their sewerage and other assets to maintain the integrity of these systems and to improve the performance and quality of their services. In 1986–87 their capital expenditure on sewerage and sewage treatment and disposal was £465 million, 25 per cent. more than in 1980–81 in volume terms.

  Water services in other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for the Secretaries of State concerned.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take urgent steps in order to make urban development corporations accountable to the local communities and their elected local authorities in matters related to green areas, shopping, transport and educational facilities and to environmental requirements.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. The UDCs are appointed by the Secretary of State and are accountable through him to Parliament. They seek to work closely with local authorities and are required to consult local authorities about the exercise of UDC powers.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are in his view needed in order to avoid speculation in the housing sector, in the event of the creation of further urban development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  None.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of the occupants of the homes built by the London Docklands development corporation were previously residents in that area;

  (2) how many families previously resident in the London docklands and with an annual income of £9,000

  437
  or less have been able to acquire new homes made available by the London Docklands development corporation;

  (3) how many new homes have been built by the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 6,928 new homes were completed within the LDDC's area between July 1981 and 31 March 1987. None was built by or for the corporation itself. Of 4,210 homes built on corporation-owned land, 3,263 were for owner occupation. Of these 1,490–46 per cent.—were sold to individuals previously resident in one of the three docklands boroughs.

  No information is available about the previous residence of tenants of homes provided on LDDC land or of owners of homes built on non-LDDC sites. No income data is available relating to occupants of new homes in docklands.

  Rents
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimates for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 of the increased cost of housing benefits which will result from his proposals to end the present protection on rent prices in the private sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our deregulation proposals will apply only to tenancies granted after the legislation comes into effect. The rights of existing tenants in respect of both rent and security, will not be affected.

  Any estimate of the effects of the proposals on housing benefit payments would at this stage be purely speculative.

  Low-cost Houses
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many low-cost houses are at present needed in order to extend private home ownership to low income families.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Not all low-income families would wish to try to buy a house on mortgage and many would have insufficient means to do so, even on low-cost home ownership terms. There is, therefore, no point in attempting to estimate how many low-cost houses are needed to enable all low-income families to buy.

  Water (Privatisation)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the European countries where the national water resources have been privatised.

  Mr. Moynihan
  A number of countries involve private companies in water supply services either directly or through franchise arrangements. In France 62 per cent. of the population receives water from private companies.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific steps he is taking for the protection of the health of British people in the event of privatisation of water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The legislation giving effect to our proposals for the restructuring and privatisation of the water authorities in England and Wales will clarify and strengthen the legal basis for drinking water quality standards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and local authorities will continue to have monitoring roles in 438
  this area. The National Rivers Authority will be responsible for granting consents for discharges to rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, including the discharge of effluent from the sewage treatment works of the privatised utilities.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give a detailed response to the European Community report which found that drinking water in Britain is not up to the standards required.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The European Commission has queried some aspects of the implementation of the EC drinking water directive in the United Kingdom. The Government are examining the queries and will be replying to the Commission shortly.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what relative priority is accorded to (a) the commercial interests of development, and (b) the needs of the local community in deciding the policies of a develqpment corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for the UDCs to decide how to regenerate their areas. In doing so, they will have in mind the need to strike a balance between commercial interests and the needs of the local community.

  Housing (Consultations)
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in tackling the housing crisis in Britain, he will make it his policy to consult fully and regularly with local authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is already my practice to do so.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest statistics for people in bed and breakfast accommodation in the United Kingdom, paid by public funds.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are no overall figures of the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation paid for by public funds. However, there were an estimated 11,300 households in Great Britain, who were being accommodated in bed and breakfast at the end of June 1987 by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts. In almost all of these cases at least part of the costs will have been met from public funds.

  National Coal Board (Tenants)
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what protection he will give to the tenants of National Coal Board houses once such houses are sold to private owners.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Tenants of British Coal who are transferred to private landlords will continue to have the full protection of rent, Iandlord and tenant and housing legislation. They will enjoy the same security of tenure, the
  439
  right to a registered rent, and continue to have protection against the harassment and illegal eviction. New landlords will have repairing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Existing tenants will continue to enjoy protection in respect of rents and security when our proposals for reform of the rent legislation are implemented.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are to give assistance to private householders to remove fallen trees following the recent hurricane.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Removal of fallen trees is financially a matter for the owners of those trees. My right hon. Friend has already issued advice to householders on tree removal and the case of damaged trees. The Task Force, Trees, of the Countryside Commission will be considering what further advice to offer.

  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest available estimate as to the cost to local authorities of making good storm damage consequent upon the gales of 15 and 16 October; what amount of grant will be lost to local authorities as a result of their paying up to a penny rate on repair; and how this sum breaks down between the individual affected authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has asked local authorities to give initial estimates of the costs of dealing with the storm damage by Friday 30 October.

  Prudent local authorities will have budgeted for their likely level of grant after taking account of contingencies. They therefore should not suffer additional grant losses as a result of having to meet emergency-related costs up to the threshold of the Bellwin scheme.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds he disagreed with the inspectors view that the advantage of retaining the main building of County Hall for local government activities was an overriding consideration.

  Mr. Chope
  The grounds are set out in the decision letter issued on 20 October, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigation are being pursued by his Department on the listed building implications for the development of County Hall as a hotel.

  Mr. Chope
  None. These are matters for the London residuary body, as the owners of County Hall.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if any inquiries have been made in his Department for the use of London City airport by any aircraft other than the Dash-7.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Parkinson and Woolaway Houses
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of Parkinson and Woolaway houses in private ownership he now expects to be repurchased by local authorities on the grounds that the cost of repair would exceed the value of the repaired house.

  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities have reported some 800 Woolaway and 1,000 Parkinson dwellings in private ownership. It is not possible to forecast reliably the proportion likely to be repurchased by authorities under the housing defects legislation, but we would expect the majority to be repaired. We are currently considering whether the Act's rules concerning repurchase as against repair can be made more flexible.

  Brixham Harbour (Development)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he chose not to call in the recent planning application for a housing development and marina at Brixham harbour, Devon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  Because I considered that it did not meet the criteria for doing so, which are set out in my Department's circular 2/81.

  Peterborough Development Corporation
  Mr. Quentin
  Davies asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the date on which Peterborough development corporation is to be wound up.

  Mrs. Roe
  On 11 June 1986 my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) announced that 30 September 1988 had been set as the target wind up date for the corporation. Consultations under section 41 of the New Towns Act 1981 with Cambridgeshire county and Peterborough city councils have been undertaken, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have considered the responses received. Having taken these into account, my right hon. Friend confirms his intention to wind up Peterborough development corporation on 30 September 1988. The necessary order will be made next year.

  Local Government Act 1985
  Mr. Dicks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what the latest information returned by London boroughs and metropolitan districts under section 56 of the Local Government Act 1985 shows.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has today placed the information relating to September 1986, December 1986 and March 1987 in the Library of the House. The remaining information for June 1987, March 1988 and March 1989 will be placed in the Library when it becomes available.

  I announced in February that some 6,300 posts had been saved immediately on abolition. The residuary bodies employed nearly 4,500 staff in June 1986. They are making good progress towards the early completion of these tasks and their staff had fallen by 600 by March 1987.

  The information returned under section 56 shows that the number of staff engaged on functions inherited from the abolished councils rose by nearly 1,200 between June 1986 and March 1987.
  441
  The estimates include all staff reported as taken of by successor councils to discharge their inherited functions, whether as an immediate consequence of abolition or subsequently. It is evident that some successor councils have not taken full advantage of the opportunity created by abolition for the streamlining of services and the elimination of duplication. Such councils remain accountable to their electorates for failing to pass on to ratepayers the real benefits in cash savings and improved services which abolition has achieved.

  Barnacle Geese
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the removal of barnacle geese from the EEC protected birds list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not received any representations to remove the barnacle goose from the species listed on annex 1 to the Council directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Transport: Europe
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, following the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council held on 26th October, agreement was reached on a total package covering air capacity and market access; and whether they will make a statement indicating the support being given to the unilateral action proposed by British Airways to hasten the liberalisation of air transport in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the 26th October council was cancelled because there was an insufficient number of items ready for discussion. The next Transport Council is scheduled for 7th December.
As far as the British Airways action is concerned, the Government welcome this as a step in the right direction.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as the Minister said last week that the most important thing to do was to get the aviation package on the council agenda as soon as possible, does he agree that the cancellation of meetings is hardly the best way of bringing this about? Does he realise that the House will hear with astonishment that the council did not have enough matters to discuss to hold the meeting on the 26th? May we expect, as we are certainly entitled to do, some definite action on 7th December?
With regard to British Airways, apart from the appreciation of the initiative taken, can the Minister give any indication as to whether, if the airline runs into difficulties with other member states following the termination of commercial agreements, the Government will give every help possible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. Regarding the cancellation of 26th October council, we first need to resolve the dispute with Spain over Gibraltar Airport. Bilateral talks aim at resolving this issue by the time the UK and Spanish Foreign Ministers meet on 30th November. Secondly, a further opinion on the package is awaited from the European Parliament and it has been asked to produce that in time for the 7th December council.
On the second point of the noble Baroness, the Government have always accepted that the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome apply to air
634
transport and we shall continue to do all we can to ensure their proper application. We therefore take the view that any member state that seeks to maintain an obligation on Community airlines to agree upon or even consult with one another about tariffs is incompatible with that state's obligations under the treaty.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the Question of the noble Baroness referred to the desirability of an agreement, a total package, covering air capacity and market access? In view of that and of the question which I put to the Minister when the noble Baroness put her Question on 22nd October, and in the light of the Minister's reply, do the Government propose to have discussions with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority as a result of his statement about the necessity to look elsewhere for air space?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are obviously in constant touch with the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. There is very little that I can add to what I said last week on the subject. We are very keen to get this package through and very much hope that it will go through by the end of the year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps I may rise to ask a question again. If the package involves a diversity of traffic to different airports in this country or increased night flying, surely that ought to be discussed in advance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not accept that there will necessarily be that much pressure on air space as a result of the adoption of the package. There is still capacity to spare in the South-East. There is also capacity available elsewhere in the country.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I believe that I heard the Minister say that he welcomed the initiatives of British Airways. Will he encourage other air companies to follow the lead of British Airways? Can he see any connection with the action of British Airways and the current consideration of the merger with BCal?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with regard to other airlines, it was British Airways that was taken to court, so to speak, by the Commission over this matter, as well as British Caledonian. All the other airlines were foreign so that it did not apply to any other UK airlines.
On the merger proposals, noble Lords will have to wait until my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes his mind up on the issue in the middle of next month.

AIDS: Additional Funding
3.6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: 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 it is the case, as reported in The Times on 28th September, that the Treasury will provide at least £50 million next year for the treatment and care of AIDS patients over and above the NHS budget; and if not, what additional funds will be provided and how they will be allocated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government recognise that as the number of cases of AIDS grows there will be increasing demands on health service resources particularly in the three Thames regions, which currently have over 80 per cent. of reported cases. However, on the question of resource allocations for next year, I am unable to anticipate the statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make shortly.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer so far as it goes. Is he aware that the resources made available to the London regions that he mentioned still represent only about one-third of the real need and that the £1·6 million allocated by Mr. Fowler for the drug AZT has, on my understanding, run out? Does he agree that we are in danger of treating the biggest public health hazard of the century on a rather hand-to-mouth basis?
Has the time not come for a strategic plan on the lines suggested by myself in The Times in December of last year and much more importantly by the Select Committee on Social Services of the other place in a report on 13th May in which it makes similar recommendations? Finally, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are planning to respond to the very important report by the Social Services Committee of another place which touches on all these matters?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course we shall respond to the report of the Social Services Committee of another place in due course. I should point out that this year health authorities have received cash increases in their resources of an average 8·8 per cent; that is 3·7 per cent. in real terms. Last week my honourable friend the Minister for health announced an extra allocation of £6·5 million for the three Thames regional health authorities which have been facing special additional pressures as the result of the large number of AIDS patients that we are having to treat. In total this year we have allocated £12·5 million extra to those three regions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it the case, as reported in the press, that certain hospitals in the Thames regions—and the ones to which I have seen reference are St. Stephen's and the Middlesex—because of the need to treat AIDS cases have had to to reduce other services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, not to the best of my knowledge. The money is given as a
636
contribution towards health authority costs of treatment and counselling services. It is for the health authorities to decide the level of spending on particular services within the general allocations made to them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will help voluntary organisations such as Phoenix House—and here I have to declare an interest as I chair that organization—to set up hospices or refuges for young women who have AIDS, who are having babies and who are drug addicts? This is a most complicated section of our community and it is not popular in hospitals.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the money that the Government provide through Section 64 grants, and about which I think the noble Baroness is talking, is for more general purposes. In other words, it must cover a wide geographical spread and not the specific instance to which she refers.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister able to make a statement yet on what progress has been made on implementing the 1987 AIDS Control Act?
Lord Skelmersdale: Partially, my Lords. The Act has been brought into effect. It requires health authorities to report by March 1988. The Government will be issuing guidance to the health authorities shortly so that they can prepare reports.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government are planning to reply to the report I mentioned, I think the noble Lord said, "in due course". Can he be a little more specific? That report was published on 13th May. When it does come out will the Government—on this very important issue of public health, perhaps the major public health hazard of this century—make time available for a debate in this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the subjects for debates are matters for the usual channels, but I feel sure that they will have noted the noble Lord's concern. "In due course" I hope will mean shortly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the work done by Phoenix House is spread throughout the country, including Scotland?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful for that clarification, my Lords. I shall bear the point in mind and refer it to my honourable friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord please bear in mind that, due to the increasing number of AIDS patients, many of them will want to be treated in the community and be cared for in their own homes? Will he ask his right honourable friend to make sure that sufficient cash is available to support both these patients and the GPs who have to care for them by way of daily helps, physiotherapists and that sort of thing, so that there is genuine care in the community and not just token care?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is a very wide matter indeed. As the noble Countess will be aware, we have asked Sir Roy Griffiths to report on financial support for people with various disadvantages who live in the community. For the moment, while the whole House will agree that the subject of AIDS is very serious indeed, it is inappropriate to treat the needs of AIDS patients differently from those of patients suffering from other serious conditions.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, earlier the noble Lord referred to the increase in the numbers of those suffering from this dreadful disease. Will he indicate the latest percentage increase and whether or not his department regard that as very significant?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the percentage increases but I can tell him the latest figures. In the United Kingdom at the end of September there were 1,067 reported AIDS patients, of whom 605 had died.

Tiffin Schools
3.13 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decision has been reached on the proposal to abolish the Tiffin schools in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, as far as the Government are concerned, if the Kingston local authority wished to close the Tiffin schools, it would first have to publish its proposals under Section 12 of the Education Act 1980. No such proposals have been published. I understand that the authority has now revised its plans.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and for the indication that two of the best schools in England will be allowed to continue. Can my noble friend confirm that this happy change of front on the part of the local authority concerned is not unconnected with the Liberal Party losing control of the council as the result of a recent by-election?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to confirm my noble friend's understanding.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the party of which I am proud to be a member believes that non-selective education is a good thing for the benefit of all children? Furthermore is the noble Baroness aware that on Tuesday of last week in the Kingston-upon-Thames education committee, where the Conservative Party has a majority of three to one, a new proposal put forward by the leader of that group was withdrawn because of the confusion that existed within that committee?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my understanding of the decision of that meeting of the education committee on Tuesday last week was that the plans that had previously been put forward to "comprehensivise" the system in Kingston-upon-Thames has been abandoned.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the implication of her noble friend that this Government will only support worthy causes if they are put forward by a Conservative council?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think that there are many examples that would refute the statement made by the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, chose to rejoice in the result of a single by-election. Will the Minister acknowledge that at the last election across the whole of the London borough of Kingston-upon Thames a majority of votes were cast for those parties—the Labour Party and the Alliance party—which supported and still support the abolition of selective education?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think we are going a bit wide of the specific Question. Nevertheless I rejoice that the result of the General Election is providing the country with the opportunity to decide whether it wants more choice in the field of education.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the context of education in Surrey, in which I used to take some part some 40 years ago as vice chairman of the education committee, the two schools of Tiffin, boys and girls, stood as shining lights in a very fine educational system and won more education honours than everywhere else in the county and probably in the country? Will she agree that their maintenance as two individual grammar schools will continue to give the opportunity for excellence which has existed in the past? Leaving aside all these local manoeuvres, is my noble friend aware that the continuation of these schools will undoubtedly be for the benefit of the young people of Surrey?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I happily agree with my noble friend and say that we should all rejoice in the excellence that these two schools have provided.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Baroness avoid "de-comprehensivisation" and promise never to use it again?
Baroness Hooper: That is a promise I can cheerfully give, my Lords.

Consumer Protection Act: Interpretation
3.17 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: 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 now propose to amend the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act relating to the defence of development risks so as to bring them into line with the EC directive.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am fully aware of the views that have been expressed about the differences in the wording of the development risks' defence in the Consumer Protection Act, and those used in the EC directive. But the Government remain convinced both of the need to retain the defence in the Act, so as not to stifle innovation, and also of the correctness of the choice of wording in the Act. As the noble Lord is aware, the development risks' defence was debated at length during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. The present wording interprets the meaning of the directive with a clarity that will make it easier for both the courts and businessmen to understand. I have no plans to amend the Act.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for that full reply. May I ask him whether he has considered the opinion by a very eminent QC which was sent to him some time ago confirming the view which was expressed here that the present wording of the relevant subsection, replacing as it did an amendment passed in this House, does not comply with the EC directive? Is he not concerned that if this matter goes to the European Court of Justice the likelihood is that we shall suffer yet another defeat at the hands of the court?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in my experience I have found that lawyers often give conflicting opinions. The Commission is aware of what we have done and no formal approach or complaint has been made by the Commission over the wording of the development risks' defence in the Act itself. This has been through both Houses of Parliament and the decision has been made. I hope that it can stand.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I can think of no conceivable reason why he should be, but convention compels me to put it in this form—that I spent many long and far from exhilarating hours presiding over the deliberations of the legal committee of the European Parliament on this very complex and technical directive? Does he appreciate that, as he would expect from that circumstance, it by no means follows that the wording is perfect?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I appreciate the sacrifice which my noble friend has made, but I do not envy him in the slightest.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as it is my amendment that is being discussed, I wonder whether I might ask the Minister a question? The noble Lord, Lord Young, was not the Minister when this was done on 14th May. I believe he has just said that he is aware of all the arguments. But I wonder whether he would have a word with the Leader of the House, who is aware of the background to all this and who was good enough to discuss it with me at the time. Perhaps subsequently after speaking to the Leader of the House the noble Lord, Lord Young, might feel able to look at the matter again. Finally, does he realise that this decision of your Lordships' House was set aside neither by argument nor by vote but by private arrangement, which I thought was quite disgraceful?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. By convention and in fact, I am fully aware of my predecessors' acts. I must repeat that I am aware of all that happened during the passage of the Bill through the House. I still have no plans to amend the Act.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that industry will appreciate greatly his original Answer?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the wholly objective standard set in the directive is met by Section 4(1)(e) of the Act, which must, by saying what a producer may be expected to discover, be a subjective standard?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are now entering into a technical realm. The Consumer Protection Bill, as it went through your Lordships' House and eventually into law, provided a test which all parties outside your Lordships' House and the Government—I accept not all in your Lordships' House—felt would be better and would not put at risk technical innovation. It is for each of the members of the Community to comply with European Community directives in ways which they think fit and proper. It is for the Commission to decide whether we have met that test. It is now a matter for the Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I did not ask him about the opinions of his predecessors, which we know and which do not impress us? What I asked him was whether he would have a word with the Leader of the House, who had discussed all this with me, about the background of this matter. Finally, is he aware that I am not on a technical matter, but on something which is much more difficult—a simple answer to a simple question?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the next time I see the Leader of the House I will have a word with him about it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that considerable latitude was

641
given as to how member states' governments should implement any Community directives, and that views differ? If any member state oversteps the mark, that is a matter for the Court of Justice.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is first a matter for the Commission which has looked at what individual member states have done. It could then easily be a matter for the International Court of Justice or the European Court. That will have to follow in due course.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that Brussels has been notified that we have conformed with the directive?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the European Commission is aware of what we have done. Discussions have taken place. Nothing has happened as a result. I hope very much that the Commission is satisfied with the Act as it now stands.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my assurance that if the Government decide to do the sensible thing and accept the views that were expressed by your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill—that the words of the Act should track the words of the directive—and that if to do so they wish to produce a Bill to that effect, they will have the Opposition's full support in ensuring its speedy passage?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful for the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I have yet to see whether we wish to come back to him on it. I very much doubt it. I repeat again: at present we have no plans to amend the Act.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we warmly welcome his decision to concentrate on the work of his department and to resist any blandishments which might take him to less profitable and rewarding pastures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful. I found out that there was no second salary involved!

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a period, and that during the adjournment the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure and the Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations 1987 will be taken.
I wonder whether I may add this. While no one would wish your Lordships' consideration of any part of the Criminal Justice Bill to fall short of its usual thoroughness, progress so far has been disappointing. I know that the House would appreciate it if every noble Lord who takes part would use his best endeavours to see that as much
642
expedition as possible is achieved on this and remaining days.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of ships; to make provision for the giving of financial assistance in connection with the training of seamen and crew relief costs; to make provision for the establishment of a Merchant Navy Reserve; to make further provisions with respect to the safety of shipping; with respect to liability and compensation for oil pollution and with respect to the financing and administration of the lighthouse service; to make other amendments of the law relating to shipping, seamen and pollution; and for connected purposes.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Civil Evidence (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make fresh provision in relation to civil proceedings in Scotland regarding corroboration of evidence and the admissibility of hearsay and other evidence; and for connected purposes.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Whitchurch Bridge Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

European Communities Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Shepherd be appointed a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of the Lord Beswick, deceased.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Bill Procedure: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure:

Atholl, D.

Bancroft, L.

Bellwin, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.;

That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers; and
That a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and with the Resolution of 22nd October last, and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3A.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (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 Chairman of Committees: The first amendment I have to call is Amendment No. 67, which does not appear on the Marshalled List but is printed separately.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Supervised release scheme.
—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who after the commencement of this Act is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than 3 years shall be released on a supervised release licence when he has served one third of his sentence or one month, whichever is the longer; or such later date as may be necessary to take account of any forfeiture of remission.
(2) Where a court considers that it is necessary for the protection of the public, it may order that an offender who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years shall not be released on a supervised release licence under subsection (1) above.
(3) A person subject to a supervised release licence—

(a) shall be under the supervison of a probation officer, and

(b) shall comply with such requirements, if any, as the Secretary of State may specify in this licence.

(4) For the purpose of this section consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment shall be treated as a single term.
(5) A person whose sentence is reduced by the operation of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentence of imprisonment by reference to periods spent in custody on remand) shall for the purpose of this section be treated as if any period taken into account under that section were included in his sentence.
(6) A person shall remain subject to a supervised release licence until he has served two-thirds of his sentence, with the addition of any period for which he may have forfeited remission unless the licence is revoked under subsection (7) below.
(7) A person subject to a supervised release licence who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed under subsection (3)(b) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to—

(a) a fine not exceeding £200.

(b) a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding 30 days.

(8) Where a person subject to a supervised release licence commits an offence punishable with imprisonment, a court may order his return to custody for a period not exceeding—

(a) the outstanding period for which the supervised release licence would otherwise be in force, or

(b) 30 days,

whichever is the longer.").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 67, I should like to express my sense of relief that it has been called at the beginning of today's business, instead of being called at about 10 p.m. at the end of Tuesday night's business when for unavoidable reasons I had to leave the Committee.
This is an amendment to which the All-Party Penal Affairs Group attaches great importance. I am fortunate to be moving it because I have been associated with the proposal for many years. I have taken due note of what the Government Chief Whip said, and I shall be as brief as possible. It may be seen to be a somewhat complicated amendment. The amendment would make available to the courts a new form of sentence, part to be served in prison and part under supervision in the community, with the conditions to be specified by the courts. I stress those words. They are crucial to the nature of the amendment. It is a composite sentence. The sentence would be applicable to all offenders serving a term of imprisonment of three months but under three years.
The Committee will notice that in subsection (1) of the amendment the offender must have served one month or one-third of his sentence, whichever is the longer, which means that it would be a sentence of three months' imprisonment. The Committee will also note in subsection (1) the word "shall". It is a composite sentence to be applied to all offenders within those periods of time. It would in fact replace parole for most of those who are sentenced within those periods, which was introduced under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Section 33, as some Members of the Committee are aware, has created anomalies and has attracted a good deal of criticism, notably by the judges.
The proposal was moved in, I think, exactly this form, or at any rate close to this form, as an amendment to the Bill in the last Parliament by Mr. Gerald Bermingham, a Member of another place. It received a sympathetic response from Mr. David Mellor, who was then a Home Office Minister. He, however, felt that it was premature and should await further consideration of the defects of Section 33 parole both within the Home Office and in discussion with the judges. Those discussions have since taken place.
As the Committee will know, the Home Secretary has since asked the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to carry out a review of the working of the whole parole system, which is most welcome. Because I am well

645
aware of that I should perhaps say at this stage that, depending on how it is viewed by the Committee and in particular by the Minister, I may well not press this amendment to a Division.
The broad outline of the proposal has been current for some years. It has very respectable antecedents. It was the subject of a Home Office White Paper which reviewed parole in England and Wales in 1981. It had the constant support of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, and it was commended by the Home Office Home Affairs Committee in its report on the prison service, also in 1981.
Sir Patrick Mayhew, while Minister of State at the Home Office in that same year, commended it as being,
"not a reduction in sentence lengths as such but rather a restructuring of the nature of sentences".
I should add that it has the support of the Magistrates' Association and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation.
The Lord Chief Justice, commenting on my own reference to this form of sentence in a speech in your Lordships' House on 28th February 1982, spoke approvingly of the idea, always subject to the courts having the power not to apply such a sentence in certain cases. If he will forgive my saying so, I remember the curious expression that the noble and learned Lord used—that the courts should have the power to disapply it. That was the word the Lord Chief Justice used.
This form of sentence would have certain important benefits for the penal system. First and foremost, it would place the question of supervised early release as part of a sentence firmly in the hands of the courts. They would have discretion to order that this composite sentence be carried out, or to refuse the non-custodial part, or, if they thought fit, to require that the question of that part be referred to the Home Secretary; in other words, to the parole procedure. This is the cardinal point of this amendment.
Secondly, it would have the benefit of reducing the prison population by an estimated 2,000. That is not an inconsiderable benefit, as I am sure most Members of the Committee would be bound to agree, although I stress that it is second in importance to the value of this form of sentence. Thirdly, it would extend the benefits of parole, or serving part of the sentence under supervision in the community, to a considerably larger number of prisoners. That benefit has been amply proven by the parole system.
Fourthly, it would reduce the amount of time actually spent in prison. There is wide agreement that shorter periods spent in prison, especially for lesser offenders and most particularly for recidivists, are at least as effective as longer ones. Fifthly, it would avoid the costly and time-consuming procedure for assessing and processing shorter sentences through the local review committees and the Home Office. Lastly, it would leave the parole system to concentrate on the more serious offenders who are serving longer sentences—three years and more. The board would only have to consider the, I hope, very exceptional cases of persons serving under three years when the courts so direct.
All these are important arguments in favour of a novel step in penal policy. Some Members of the Committee may think that it is a radical proposal, but it amounts to no more than restoring to the courts the decision as to how long a period should be served in prison and how long in the community. In any case, radical and innovative ideas are badly needed. They are badly needed to deal more effectively and more constructively with crime as well as to extricate ourselves from the dangerous situation in which some of our prisons containing those shorter sentence prisoners are filled to bursting point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may, for a change, intervene at this stage because of something I have to say, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has touched. It may help the debate. This is a matter which received a great deal of attention in 1981 in the run-up to the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The Government concluded then, for a variety of reasons, that it would he better not to go ahead with a scheme on the lines contained in the new clause for automatic release under supervision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will recall, we decided instead to proceed down a different path. In the first place, we activated a provision which already existed in Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, under which short sentences of imprisonment can be partly suspended. Partial suspension is now available for prison sentences which would otherwise be between three months and two years. It is a useful power which enables the courts to respond to cases where a shorter period in custody than the offence would otherwise justify will suffice for purposes of punishment and deterrence. About 3,900 sentences of imprisonment were partly suspended last year.
Secondly, the supervised release scheme which was under discussion in 1981 following the review of parole was directed, as is this new clause, at the shorter sentence prisoner serving less than three years, who was at that time ineligible for parole. During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, we agreed to include a provision (Section 33) which allowed the minimum qualifying period for parole to be reduced by order. After a great deal of consideration of the practical implications, we reduced the minimum qualifying period to six months in 1984. The effect is that a much larger number of prisoners became eligible for parole. The increase at the time was from around 10,000 to around 23,000 each year.
More recently, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 16th July that we had decided, as an interim measure, to increase from one-third to one-half of sentence length the maximum amount of remission which those serving sentences of up to and including 12 months could gain, depending on good behaviour.
I describe this as an interim measure because, as the Committee will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us, my right honourable friend announced at the same time that he was setting up a review of parole and remission arrangements under the chairmanship of a distinguished former Member of another place, Mark Carlisle, who will, I am glad

647
to say, before long be a Member of this Chamber. The review responds to criticism voiced by members of the judiciary and others about the effect of the reduced minimum qualifying period for parole. But its remit is wide, and embraces the possibility that Mr. Carlisle's committee may devise an alternative scheme—alternative, that is, to parole—for the release of prisoners before the expiry of their sentences.
The review of the parole system is now well under way, and the suggestion in this new clause is so central to the matters it will be considering that I am sure the Committee would not expect me to comment on it in detail this afternoon. That is my reason for intervening at this stage of our debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, one significant difference between this proposal and the one which the Government developed in 1981 is that under the new clause the court would have a discretion to disapply the supervised release scheme in individual cases where it considered it necessary to do so for the protection of the public.
The idea of a limited discretion of that kind is, if I may say so, an ingenious one, and I shall draw it to the attention of Mr. Carlisle's committee. As a result, I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect this short debate to be in any way conclusive. However, it will be valuable and I am sure that Mr. Carlisle and the members of his committee will read the report of our proceedings with interest. I also look forward to hearing what Members of the Committee have to say in respect of this amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As my name is on the amendment, as we have been asked by the Chief Whip to be short, and as my noble friend has put the case with clarity, I have nothing to add.
It is now five years since we began, and we have found that it takes about five years before the better ideas put forward by the All-Party Penal Affairs Committee are adopted. I hope that in due course something will be done about the matter, after we have received the report which the noble Earl rightly asked us to wait for.
Lord Mishcon: I should like to say a few words about the reference to the Chief Whip who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. It is obviously proper for a Chief Whip to try to expedite business. However, I think that the Committee will want to bear in mind the serious provisions with which we are dealing in the Bill. If the Committee has to sit for one extra day in order that its deliberations shall be as full and as sensible as they should be, I believe that noble Lords will not think that to be a gross burden upon the shoulders of the Committee.
Secondly, I saw a reference in today's Times to the fact that possibly some of the slowness—as it was indicated—in the Committee's deliberations may be due to difficulties sustained by the Minister in charge of the Bill because he is not a trained lawyer. From this side of the Committee I at once want to pay a completely sincere tribute to the skill with which the noble Earl has conducted the debate so far on behalf of the Government. If he ever decided to join the
648
ranks of my distinguished profession, he would be a welcome member and would beat most of us at our own game.
I should like to ask the noble Earl this question. He was kind enough to indicate that the matters that would be dealt with in respect of this amendment may be referred to the Carlisle committee, if I can call it that. There is one matter about which I am not clear and on which I need guidance. If we were to take it for granted that the Carlisle committee were to make a recommendation along the lines of this sensible amendment, especially with the court power to which the Minister has referred and which is inserted in this amendment, would the necessary powers exist to carry this through by way of an ordinary order, or would one need to have an amending Bill? If one needed to have an amending Bill—and, from a parliamentary point of view, one knows the difficulty of programming it—I think that merely leaving it to the Carlisle committee to consider, if we felt fervently about the matter, may be difficult. If, on the other hand, it could be carried by an order, quite obviously we would have a different view. Can the noble Earl help in respect of that matter?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, I can help the Committee. It is one of a number of matters at which the Carlisle committee will be looking, though as I have said, it is a very central matter. It would require legislation. I discussed the matter with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and it was part of his decision in July that that was the right way in which to proceed. When we receive the Carlisle committee report we shall consider it urgently. The committee is due to report in July next year, so it will be a quick committee. My right honourable friend will then wish to make a speedy decision and introduce the necessary legislation that he sees fit at that time.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Between now and Report stage—or possibly at Report stage—can the noble Earl indicate that it is the definite intention of the Government to carry through the recommendations of the Carlisle committee, if approved by Parliament, in speedy amending legislation? Again, that may help us because we are all anxious to carry through sensible reform but I hope that we shall be able to do so speedily. If it cannot be done speedily by the amending Bill, we shall have to consider doing it in this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely it is difficult to ask any government to commit themselves in advance to implementing the recommendations of a report? It has been recognised by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Donaldson, that this proposal involves a restructuring of the parole system. Clearly the matter warrants consideration and, among other matters, it is for general review by the Carlisle committee, subject to this amendment. I think that at this stage it would be premature to try in this Bill to seek to find a resolution. With respect, I disagree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he says that if the Government will not commit

649
themselves in advance to implement recommendations, they should be implemented in this Bill. With respect, that is a non sequitur.
Lord Hylton: I too welcome what has been done particularly in the direction of partially suspended sentences, greater eligibility of parole and increased remission for sentences up to 12 months. The Minister mentioned all those points in his intervention. I strongly welcome this amendment which provides for custodial sentences and for supervision in the community. I believe it to be of such importance that it would be a pity if it was not more fully discussed today and I hope that we may have further opportunities to do so in the course of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Hunt has made clear that in any event it is not his intention to press this amendment today. I believe that the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is entirely reasonable in terms of the general approach of the Home Office on the assumption that the Carlisle committee makes a positive recommendation in favour of this broad approach.
If I may say so on behalf of the noble Earl, it is difficult for a Home Office Minister to give guarantees as to what will appear in the Queen's Speech at the end of next year. It would be attractive were we able to lean on the noble Earl and persuade him to commit himself. However, I do not think that he has that authority and all we can do is to ask him to give as great an undertaking as he is prepared to give that the Home Secretary will do the best that he can, as a departmental Minister, to obtain parliamentary time on the assumption that the Carlisle committee makes a positive recommendation.
Lord Hunt: I have listened with care to everything that has been said and particularly to the Minister who rightly intervened at an early stage. As my noble friend Lord Harris has made clear, I said that I might not be pressing this amendment to a division. I had anticipated that the noble Earl would say what he did. Had I been sitting in his seat—I would have no qualifications for doing so—I should probably have taken exactly the same line.
I was anxious to give this proposal an airing and, judging from the silence of the Committee, I hope that I can take it that there is no strong feeling against it. I will hang on to the use of the word "ingenious", which the noble Earl used in connection with part of the amendment, hoping that whatever he may not have said in public he has some sympathy for in private. I shall wait hopefully and with confidence on Mr. Carlisle to produce, if not this amendment, then something that meets the proper objections to the shortcomings of Section 33 parole. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 44 insert the following new clause:
("Prison Disciplinary Tribunal.
.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this section there shall be a body known as the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal, consisting of—

(a) the President, who shall be a circuit judge; and

(b) not less than four chairmen, who shall be barristers or solicitors of not less than seven years' standing

who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(2) The President shall appoint not less than twelve lay members of the Tribunal.
(3) The Lord Chancellor shall make rules for the referral of charges to the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal, the proceedings of the Tribunal on charges referred to it and the imposition of penalties by the Tribunal.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal to inquire into any charge referred to it under rules made under subsection (3) above and, if it finds an offence against discipline proved, to impose penalties as prescribed by those rules.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment on behalf of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group to try to find out what is in the Government's mind in relation to the rather curious series of events which have followed the issue of the Prior Report. I am particularly interested in this subject because over 10 years ago and for 10 years I was chairman of a board of visitors. I have always thought that the main recommendation of the Prior Report was right (namely, that boards of visitors should be relieved of their adjudicatory duties) and I was concerned in persuading the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to chair the committee which some years ago recommended that change. Recently there has been a very well argued and clear report from the Prior Committee which made exactly the same recommendations.
We thought the time was ripe for notice to be taken of our views and, sure enough, in a White Paper issued last year the Government said that they had accepted the principle that boards of visitors should be relieved from handing out punishments to prisoners. The Government did not agree to the method suggested by the Prior Report, which is exactly the content of this amendment, but I do not propose to discuss that matter in detail now.
What happened on the 25th September, when the noble Earl talked to boards of visitors, came as a great shock to us all. He said that he was dropping all the concessions to which he had agreed as a result of the Prior Report except for the new code of practice and the proposed reduction of the maximum punishment from 180 days to 120 days loss of remission, but that such adjudications should continue to be performed by the boards of visitors.
On Report I want to introduce a series of constructive amendments and at that stage to divide the House in order to try to force the Government to take notice, but before I do that I have thought it wise to hear what the Government have to say about this issue. Without taking too long, I should like to remind the Committee that some Members have not served on boards of visitors although a number of others have done so, and it is an agreeable social service. The purpose of a board of visitors is threefold.
Its first objective is to look after the interests of prisoners and staff in the prison that it serves. The board must be available to hear complaints; it must he easily seen when going round the prison so that the prisoners and staff can recognise its members and if something is going wrong they can come to them. That is the board's first and most important function.
Secondly, not being a judicial body the board should not have to make adjudications of a kind which are the equivalent of an increase in sentence. In a case which I shall not cite but which is readily available Mr. Justice Waller agreed that the loss of remission was equivalent to such an increase. So it is extremely important that such decisions, if they are not to be made by the board of visitors, should be made by a body that has a proper legal head and judicial position. The board of visitors is also responsible for backing up the governor of the prison in his efforts to persuade the Home Office to improve conditions. Every prison governor finds himself in that position and the function of the board is very useful to him.
The board's third function concerns the right of the chairman to get directly in touch with the Home Secretary to tell him when there is something seriously wrong—for example, if the governor's mind seems to be going without his realising it or if he is losing his grip and it is difficult for staff to complain. It is the chairman's job to keep the Home Secretary informed.
Those are the three proper functions of the board. The additional task of handing out small and sometimes large punishments (until now it has been as much as 180 days) is deleterious to the confidence that the prisoners have in the friendship of the people on the board. If the board is to do its work properly, it is essential that the prisoners should regard it as being on their side.
I have no more to say. I think the situation is fairly obvious. Anybody who wants to know more about it will find this matter carefully and in my opinion irrefutably argued in the Prior Report. As I said, I do not propose to divide the Committee at this stage but I hope very much to be able to do so when I have found out the Government's thinking. I shall be surprised if I am able to agree with it. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: I have never sat on a board of visitors but on the other hand the courts have had to consider the position of boards of visitors at prisons, especially after the riots that took place at Hull prison in 1976. It is important to remember that boards of visitors are not merely judicial but administrative. They look into the management and affairs of the prison to ensure that everything is going well. However, in addition, they have a disciplinary function. I stress the word "disciplinary" because in such cases the Court of Appeal emphasised that when boards were exercising disciplinary functions they did not constitute a criminal court and were not exercising a criminal cause or matter. The boards were exercising disciplinary powers just as do professional bodies over their members and courts martial over members of the armed services. They are
652
exercising disciplinary powers and therefore they are not to he treated in any way as a criminal court.
However, in those cases the court said that boards must observe the rules of natural justice, that every man must know the case which is made against him and have an opportunity to defend himself, and that that principle will be enforced on the boards of visitors by the courts.
The question posed by this amendment is whether that situation should be changed. The boards of visitors consist of two magistrates and lay visitors who are well selected and advised. Are they to be replaced, as this amendment suggests, by a circuit judge or barristers and include, apparently, 12 laymen? I suggest that such a proposal turns the board far too much into a criminal cause or matter. I do not say that the system is perfect at the moment hut it is better to retain something on the present lines of a disciplinary body. Certainly the boards possess strong powers—powers to recommend remission and so forth—but they are still disiplinary bodies. As long as they observe the rules of natural justice and give everyone a fair hearing, I am not sure that it is not better to leave the situation as it is and not to set up what is in effect a new criminal court. I do not support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I support the principle of the amendment. It is made so much easier if the Committee is not put into the position of having to divide on it. The reason why I support it is from my experience as counsel, having sought, on the instructions of the Treasury in one of these cases, to support the disciplinary findings of the board of prison visitors and having been unable to persuade either court, certainly not the Court of Appeal, that these findings should stand. It had, with the best will in the world, breached some of the fundamental principles of natural justice and the courts quite rightly rejected my submissions and quashed these disciplinary findings.
That is a very bad thing for the morale of a prison. It is a very bad thing for the morale of the prisoners. Nobody knows where he stands. I welcome this opportunity to say just why I support this amendment. Of course the experience of one man may be totally inadequate, but such as it is, I think the time has come to do something; and, with respect, I totally disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that we should leave matters as they stand. There are two views about it, but I hope that in the interests of the better ordering of prisons, which is after all a very important matter of public concern today, we may all look at this without preconception and keep an open mind.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: It gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. If we go on in this way we both may end up on the Cross-Benches.
I wonder whether the Minister would agree that a wholly acceptable disciplinary tribunal in a prison can do more almost than anything else to make the administration of that prison peaceful and

653
acceptable. If he does agree to that, would he agree that there are four absolutely essential requirements for such a tribunal: that it should be independent of the prison management and appear to be so; that it should have a judicial nature; that it should have consistent decisions throughout the service; and that it should have some form of appeal?
I do not know whether the Minister would agree about that, but the proposal in this amendment has been supported by the governors, by the Prison Officers' Association, by the Law Society, as we have heard, by the all-party Penal Affairs Group and also by NACRO, by the Howard League and by the Prison Reform Trust. So that right across the whole area of people either concerned with or interested in this aspect it gets full support.
The Minister, I am sure, knows what a tremendous contribution tribunals have made in the Dutch penal system, where the tribunal which goes into the prison deals with a great many more things than pure discipline, and with nearly all matters which may give rise to frustration and complaint among the prisoners. It makes a tremendous contribution if you can get something from outside into the prison and I suggest that this amendment does exactly that. I shall be most interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with this suggestion.
The Earl of Caithness: Before I deal with the substantive issues raised by this clause, I think it may be worth recalling the recent history of this complex subject. The Prior Committee was set up to review adjudications partly because there were serious concerns whether boards would be able to cope following the Tarrant judgment, which opened up the possibility of legal representation in boards' disciplinary hearings. The Prior Committee concluded that new adjudication arrangements were needed and recommended the establishment of a prison discipline tribunal, which would consist of legally qualified chairmen and lay members. The clause now before the Committee seeks to implement this recommendation.
As a basis for consultation with interested bodies, the Government published a White Paper setting out options for new adjudication arrangements, including a tribunal as recommended by Prior, a system using magistrates and new lay panels assisted by qualified clerks, perhaps magistrates' courts clerks or local solicitors. We had thought that the last Criminal Justice Bill would provide a vehicle for legislating for changes, but in the event decided that the way forward was not sufficiently clear at this stage. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said when the subject was raised in another place, we proposed to use the time thus available to take stock. This we have done.
What has become clear is that there is no consensus about the way forward on the key question of who should, conduct adjudications on the more serious disciplinary offences. A number of individuals and organisations continue to think that the right way forward is a tribunal of the kind advocated by the Prior Committee. Some continue to think that magistrates should conduct these adjudications. Some, and in particular the large majority of boards
654
of visitors, are of the opinion that they should not lose their adjudication functions. It would be fair to say that those who support the Prior Committee's proposals have generally not regarded those in the White Paper for creating a new lay body assisted by qualified clerks as sufficiently radical. At the other end of the spectrum of opinion, while some of those who favour boards retaining their adjudicatory function see the White Paper proposals as less unsatisfactory than the Prior Committee's proposals, they cannot be said to be enthusiastic about the idea of splitting off adjudications to a new lay body. I am also aware that there is a view among some of those who support the Prior proposals that it would be better to leave things as they are than to go for an option for change other than that recommended by the Prior Committee.
Against this background, I want now to set out the main conclusions we have reached and then go on to explain what we see as the next steps. The broad conclusions we have reached are as follows. First, the Prior Committee recommended a new discipline code and various procedural and similar changes most of which seem to command general support. We believe that we should press ahead with these changes, as set out in the White Paper. Secondly, there is widespread support for the notion that whoever conducts adjudications on the more serious disciplinary offences needs to have access to legal and procedural advice, expertise and experience. We accept this.
Thirdly, I was not in the Home Office at the time but I know that the Tarrant judgment generated serious worries both in the Prison Department and among boards as to whether boards would be able to cope with adjudications post-Tarrant. It was largely for this reason that the Prior Committee was established. We are bound, however, to have regard to the fact that boards have coped remarkably well since Tarrant; and the fears which, as I have said, led to the establishment of the Prior Committee have proved largely unfounded. This is not to say there is no room for improvement, but it raises the question of whether the upheaval which the creation of a new adjudicatory body would be bound to create is actually necessary.
Fourthly, we are also bound to have regard to the possible difficulty of finding sufficient lay people for a new adjudicatory body and to the possible implications of trying to do so in terms of the availability of people to serve as members of boards of visitors.
Fifthly, as I have indicated, at present we can see no prospect of finding new arrangements for adjudications above governor level which will command general support. The prison discipline area is not one in which we would want to push through changes which did not command such support. But if we wait around for a consensus to emerge we shall do two things: we will trespass further on the patience of members of boards of visitors, who give freely and unstintingly of their time to the oversight of prison establishments, leaving them uncertain about the future and undermining their confidence in what they do. I realise with regret that this may already have happened to some extent and am grateful to boards for the forebearance they have shown. In addition,

655
we will delay the important other changes—new code of discipline, revised procedures, expert assistance—which the prison discipline system needs.
In the light of the stock-taking I have just recounted, my right honourable friend has concluded that we should not proceed with our proposal to create a new lay body to adjudicate on the more serious breaches of prison discipline. This function will stay with boards for the foreseeable future and we will get down to work with boards and governors and others to improve the disciplinary system in other ways than by structural change. I recognise that this means forgoing the objective of separating the adjudicatory and watchdog functions. This is not entirely satisfactory, though it is not without its advantages since boards of visitors possess valuable knowledge about individual establishments. But if we allow ourselves to become impaled on this point, we shall fail to make the other improvements which the Prior Report has shown are needed and which are within our grasp. As I have indicated, we shall also proceed with the new code of discipline and various other procedural matters, as indicated in the White Paper, although in the light of the decision to leave adjudications with boards.
We also intend to provide boards with the assistance of magistrates' court clerks or solicitors and will be working out with the co-ordinating committee, the Justices' Clerks' Society and other interested bodies precisely how to achieve this. In addition, we intend, again with the help of these bodies, to design training programmes for boards, governors, other staff and clerks in the new arrangement.
Finally, on timing we are aiming to have the new arrangements in place as early as possible in 1989, which gives us roughly 18 to 24 months from now.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his support in leaving matters as they are. However, as I have explained, they will not be quite as they are; there will be significant improvements. Those improvements go to the core of the reason that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway gave for supporting the amendment. The noble Lord has now had my explanation. I hope that the procedures will be tightened up and that the sort of case he suggested to the Committee will not happen again, given the expert and legal advice that will be forthcoming.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, raised four points on disciplinary procedure. I remind the Committee that what we are discussing is a very limited number of disciplinary functions undertaken by the boards of visitors. The great majority, over 90 per cent., is undertaken by the governor in the normal course of his duty. The prisoner is no stranger to having matters of discipline dealt with internally in the prison mechanism.
To take the noble Lord's four points, he said that the disciplinary body must be independent of prison management. I agree. The boards of visitors are independent of prison management. He said that this should be of a judicial nature. I think that we can overdo the "judicial nature" aspect in prisons. We are
656
talking about internal discipline within a prison, as so rightly said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that we must have consistent decisions. I could not agree more. However, this requires training. As I have said, we shall be concentrating on this to a greater degree in the future. As I am sure the Committee needs no reminding, it varies from prison to prison. It depends on the nature of prisons how many adjudicatory meetings are held by the board of visitors or its equivalent. Consistency is particularly important where there are few references to the board. This is where the training that we propose will be additionally beneficial.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The Minister mentioned my four questions. As to the independence point, the prison visitors are appointed by the Home Office. Under the amendment they would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and therefore show independence of the Administration. As to the point about consistency, a tribunal would be dealing right across the board and not separately in each individual prison.
The Earl of Caithness: I can see the wrath of the board of visitors descending upon the noble Lord if he accuses them of not being totally independent although they are appointed by my right honourable friend! I beg to differ with the noble Lord: the prison visitors are very independent, as I know full well.
Fourthly, the noble Lord mentioned appeal. Again one is becoming perhaps too judicial in the internal running of a prison. I should add a fifth point to the noble Lord's four; that is, the mood of the prison. When one is considering internal discipline, knowledge of the prison is very important. The very tribunal that the noble Lord wants will have no knowledge of the prison, it will not know the daily mood of the prison, how it fluctuates at various times of the day and how the governor and the prison officers are coping on the landings. To have a totally judicial barren body coming into a prison would, I am sure, be more upsetting than the present arrangements.
I wish to pay tribute to the work done by the boards of visitors in their adjudicatory function. When I explained our decision to them at their recent conference, they gave a warm welcome to what the Government had decided.
I thought that it was right to set before the Committee the consideration that we have given this issue. I believe that the way forward that I have mapped out will produce worthwhile improvements in our prison adjudication arrangements.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I venture to think that few proposals for prison reform have commanded wider support within the criminal justice system than the Prior Committee proposals. It is a matter of great disappointment that the Government have turned down those proposals and indeed moved from their thinking in the earlier White Paper.

657
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has listed the wide range of bodies directly concerned in the matter which have supported the recommendations in the amendment under discussion. Seldom has there been such wide consensus for what is proposed. The Prison Governors Association would be actively concerned in processes affecting discipline. There is support from the Prison Officers Association and the Magistrates Association—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, mentioned that—and the Law Society, whose clients are involved, if that is the right way of describing them, although not all of its clients naturally are involved in this matter, has indicated its support. Then there is NACRO, the Howard League and the Prison Reform Trust. There is overwhelming support for what is proposed.
I confess that both I and my noble friends are totally unconvinced by the—I will not use the unkind word "excuses"—purported explanation given by the noble Earl for not proceeding with a proposal which has had such widespread support in a difficult field.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has just said. I doubt whether any proposal in regard to prisons in the immediate past has received more widespread support than the recommendations of the Prior Committee. That having been said, I imagine that Mr. Prior must be feeling a little upset at the way in which his principal recommendations have been treated by the Government. I hope that Mr. Carlisle will be rather more successful when he makes his recommendations. If people are asked to study these matters carefully over many months and give up a great deal of time and effort in so doing, it seems most unfortunate that their central recommendations are thrown out on the basis, I am bound to say, of a pretty flimsy argument.
The noble Earl rests his case on the apparent widespread divergences of opinion that have resulted. But the central group of people opposed to what Mr. Prior has recommended is the board of visitors—not all the boards of visitors, as the noble Earl was frank enough to say, but the majority of them. It is hardly surprising that they take that view. I share the Minister's admiration for the work that they do. It is hardly surprising that some of them want to keep their existing authority in these matters.
I went into this matter a great deal when I held the same position within the Home Office as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, holds now. When I remember some of the meetings that we had with the then Home Secretary following the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—which I believe was sponsored by NACRO—I am bound to say that I increasingly came to the conclusion that it would be necessary in the future to separate the general responsibilities of boards of visitors and their disciplinary powers.
I took that view because I believe there is a fundamental inconsistency in terms of the twin roles of the boards of visitors. First their role is, as it were, to befriend the individual prisoner. Some members of the boards of visitors sit on the local review committee and make an important contribution to the whole parole process. They do an excellent job.
658
However, there is a great gap between that responsibility and their disciplinary responsibilities. That is the first leg of the argument.
The second leg concerns what the noble Earl has just said. He said, broadly speaking, that we must not be too judicial in terms of the running of the prison. However, as the noble Earl is well aware, the fact of the matter is that the courts are taking an increasing interest in what goes on in the hearings before boards of visitors. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, touched on that point. The noble Earl will be aware that there have been a whole series of cases of judicial review where the courts have expressed concern about the way in which some disciplinary hearings have been conducted.
I am not making a point of this in terms of the present Government's period of office because I remember just such a case after the Hull riots when the Labour Government were in office. The members of the then Labour Government were very concerned about some aspects of the way in which boards of visitors had carried out their responsibilities on that occasion. That was another case where the courts became involved.
The noble Earl must accept that judges will be increasingly invited to take an interest in what goes on before these tribunals—namely, the boards of visitors. Given the fact that there is this inconsistency in terms of the present responsibilities of boards of visitors and also because the courts themselves are indicating a degree of concern in this matter, it seems to me that it does require far more fundamental action than that which the Government are contemplating taking. I very much regret that the broad approach of Mr. Prior and his colleagues has not been adopted. I think that that is a mistake and that before long we shall have to return to this matter again.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, indicated that he introduced this amendment in order to test the opinion in the Committee. In expressing a personal view, it is only right that I should remind the Committee that it is now 30 years since I had responsibility for prison administration. Nevertheless I am bound to say that having listened to the arguments today it seems to me that the arguments in favour of the amendment far outweigh those against it. The Committee has heard them fully and pointedly put but that is the impression made on at least one Cross-Bencher.
The Earl of Caithness: While I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that, with the exception of boards of visitors, there was a general view that the two functions should be separated, I must tell the Committee that it was very much harder to arrive at any agreed view on what should replace boards of visitors. Indeed we did not arrive at such a view.
While some groups supported the Prior committee recommendations because they affected the split in functions, such a system was not the first choice for many of them. Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says that Mr. Prior must be very upset, I can re-emphasise that much of what he suggested is being and will be implemented, and that includes the

659
points with regard to procedures. By the use of magistrates' clerks and solicitors we hope that some of the problems that the boards faced in the noble Lord's day and in mine, I make no secret of that, will be overcome by the new provisions that we shall provide.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Earl sits down will he say in plain terms what is wrong with the system proposed in the amendment? Is it cost, I wonder? If so will the noble Earl tell us?
The Earl of Caithness: I can only apologise to the Committee. I took about seven or eight minutes explaining why I thought it was wrong and why the system that we had proposed was a better one. I should hate to read everything that I have read out yet again. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I have tried to discuss the arguments and present them in a way that showed why we found the matter so difficult. I highlighted five points in my argument for keeping the disciplinary function with the boards of visitors. I also said that because of the great difficulty that we have had in getting any kind of agreement on what could replace it, whether it is the Prior committee or whether it is something different, and for other reasons, we have opted for the present strengthened arrangements.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given us a serious argument, with which I told him that I should not agree and nor do I. However, that is no surprise to him. The noble Earl gave thought and time to this matter and outlined a number of his reasons. I am grateful to him for doing so. I wanted to get some feeling of the support in the Committee, I think that if we table an amendment on Report it might be rather different from this one. I shall explain why in a minute. I also believe that we should probably win that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity to get this matter openly discussed.
There are two comments that I wish to add to the debate. First, one must not forget that adjudications before the board only arise for fairly serious offences. The governor has the day-to-day running of the prison. I agree with the noble Earl that we should not wish to interfere with that. Therefore the argument of independence from outside is much more important than it would be if it were simply a case of small indisciplines.
I am at a loss to remember the exact words of my second point. I am sorry about that. It must be old age! I am very grateful for the assistance that I have received from my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, from my own friends and from the Cross-Benches. We shall come back to this matter on Report and I hope that we shall succeed in getting a change made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 44, insert the following new Clause:
("Criteria for sentencing young offenders.
.—(1) Where a person aged 21 years or over is convicted of an offence, the court may not pass a sentence of imprisonment on him unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the circumstances, including the nature and the gravity of the offence, are such that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate; and

(b) that he qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment.

(2) An offender qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment if—

(a) he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them; or

(b) only a sentence of imprisonment would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him; or

(c) the offence of which he has been convicted or found guilty was so serious that a non-custodial sentence for it cannot be justified.

(3) Where a court passes sentence of imprisonment on a person aged 21 years or over, it shall be its duty—

(a) to state in open court—

(i) that it is satisfied that he qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment under one or more of the paragraphs of subsection (2) above:

(ii) the paragraph or paragraphs in question; and

(iii) why it is so satisfied; and

(b) to explain to the offender in open court and in ordinary language why it is passing a sentence of imprisonment on him.")

The noble Lord said: This is a new clause intended to extend to adult offenders the criteria for imposing custodial sentences on young offenders. I must first apologise to the Committee for the fact that the side-note is both misleading and defective. It suggests that this is concerned with young offenders; it is not. It is to impose restrictions on the imposition of custodial sentences on adult offenders. The side-note could hardly be more wrong and my apologies equally could not be more profound. Perhaps one of the reasons why something went wrong in the transmission to the Marshalled List is that this amendment, quite openly and manifestly, applies to adults the provisions of Clause 111, which refers to young offenders.
The history of that clause is interesting and I want to thank the Government most warmly for incorporating it into the Criminal Justice Bill. A lot of hard work was done on Clause 111 by the all-party Penal Affairs Group. In the last Session of the last Parliament earlier this year the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced, I think, the very words of Clause 111, or something very close to them, as a Private Member's Bill. However, I do not think it was even discussed, because the chopper came down, the Session came to an end and there was a general election.
It is very welcome to be able to congratulate the Government on this and one must only hope that they will be equally sympathetic to my amendment, which extends to adults what I may call the Silkin clause, which applies only to young offenders. The Chief Whip asked us all to be brief. I am very much inclined to be brief, but the remedy lies with the noble Earl. If he could indicate that he would agree to this, I could be perhaps 30 seconds or no more than a minute. I can see no reason why, if the Government and the Home Secretary have agreed to this very remarkable Clause 111 for juveniles, they cannot also agree to the same provisions for adults.
The two main purposes are to have consistency in sentencing. As the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, consistency is the name of the game and that is one of the prime purposes of the amendment. The other of course is to keep people out of prison. Here I should like to quote the very words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when he was replying to an amendment moved I think by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said on 27th October at col. 510 of Hansard:
"I am bound to look carefully at any proposal which is argued to hold out the possibility of easing the pressure on the prison population".
That is exactly one of the main purposes of the amendment and so I very much hope that he will look carefully at this, as he said he was bound to do so.
The point about this is that the sentencing authority—the magistrates, say—have to go through hoops and have to give reasons why they are passing a sentence of custody. They also have to say why they have not felt able to consider a non-custodial sentence and to give their reasons. There are so many reasons why this is a sensible thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, when he was a Home Office Minister spoke about this on 14th July, in I think 1985. I cannot remember the year. He said:
"nothing makes it more likely that a person will go to prison than the fact that he has been there before. For most who undergo it, imprisonment is not a constructive experience. It is not a rehabilitating experience and it does predispose to reoffending".
This is an assistance in the process of not sending people to prison in the first instance. It is forcing, by statute, certain guidelines on the magistrates and other sentencing authorities so that they will have to say why they have refused to apply to this particular offender a non custodial sentence. One would have thought this would be welcome, and indeed it seems to be welcome so far as one can tell to the magistrates and the justices' clerks. There is a research study by Elizabeth Burney of 12 magistrates' courts. She found that:
"the principle of statutory reasons was … on the whole welcomed, especially by justices' clerks".
Again she says that:
"a series of hoops through which sentences must pass before they can lake the dire step of depriving a young person of his liberty'",
is again welcome.
We have some evidence that this approach works, because in the 1982 Act there were criteria which were buffed up in this House by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Those are the criteria which are in the 1982 Act and there is evidence to prove that the buffed-up criteria have had the effect of reducing the number of first offenders who would otherwise have gone to prison. So although I have had no assurance from the noble Earl that he will accept this amendment or even look at it sympathetically, I will cut short my remarks and say that, as Her Majesty's Government have agreed the principle of this amendment in relation to young offenders, I can see no reason why they cannot agree the principle of this in relation to adult offenders. For that reason, and with hope, I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: Let me say as a supporter of this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson,
662
that it underlines the principle of resorting to imprisonment only as a measure of last resort. That is a principle which has been enunciated and stressed times without number without, I suggest, having any noticeable effect on certain magistrates' courts. To translate the principle into criteria and to enshrine them in statute is likely to have a very much greater effect than any number of guidelines, urgings and advice, whether from the Home Office, the Magistrates Association, the Court of Appeal or even the Lord Chief Justice himself.
I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who when speaking to Clause 38 (a reference to the Court of Appeal for increasing a sentence) said that the guidelines were not enough: they were too generalised. I hope I have not quoted him out of context. I believe there is everything to be said for having the same criteria for adult offenders as for juvenile offenders—and in fact for all offenders—who are deemed to be appropriately dealt with only by sending them to prison.
Lord Somers: I should like very much to support this amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl would say when replying whether the Government have ever considered the question of hard labour as a possible alternative. I know this would not always be practicable but there is a great deal of heavy work to be done, particularly at present in the clearing up of the wreckage of the recent storms. I wonder whether the Government think that would be a practicable solution.
Lord Denning: While we should all welcome Clause 111 in regard to young offenders, for myself I think that the Committee would be going far beyond its functions with the amendment. It amounts to giving directions to High Court judges as well as to magistrates as to the guidelines on which they can consider sentences. They probably consider all those guidelines at the moment. However, it is not the function of Parliament to tell judges how they are to decide when sentencing. They may do that with regard to young offenders. But this amendment applies to everyone from High Court judges to magistrates.
The guidelines are precisely what are operated now. There is no need to put them in an Act of Parliament. That is not the proper place for them.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: Perhaps I may say a word or two on the point which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord. The provisions of Clause 111 arose in this way. It was felt by many that the existing restrictions which were imposed by Parliament on sentencing of a custodial nature on young children were being operated in an extremely variable way.
It was felt that it would be highly desirable that the rather broad words of that clause should be made more specific and clearer. That was why substantially the words now appearing in Clause 111 were incorporated into the Private Member's Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has referred and which I brought before the House. That Bill obtained a First Reading. However, it could go no further because of the Dissolution.

663
Those of us who supported that cause were particularly glad, therefore, to see that the Government took it up in Clause 111 and that it now appears in this Bill. It is right to say that there is no attempt here to have a second bite of the cherry. The position is that the operative part of the clause that applies to young offenders contains the principles which any court ought to apply when dealing with the question of imprisonment, whether it is dealing with a young offender or with an adult offender. In one case it is called imprisonment; in another it is a custodial penalty of a different kind. The principle remains the same.
If it be right that Parliament ought not to lay down the kind of considerations which a court should apply before deciding whether the extreme step of a custodial penalty should be imposed in the case of an adult, then it seems to me that it is right to do so in the case of a young offender as well. In that case, one would not see Clause 111 as part of the Bill.
There is a considerable benefit in making it clear to the courts, whether they be the high courts or the magistrates' courts, that there are certain criteria which ought to be followed, which are understood and which are the wishes of Parliament. That is equally applicable whether one deals with the young offender or with the adult offender.
There is the further advantage that the clause and the amendment would force a court, where it takes the view that the case in question is one in which it cannot avoid, for one reason or another, a custodial sentence, to say why that is the case. Provision is made for that in subsection (3)(a). That applies equally whether one is dealing with a young offender or an adult.
In my view it is a considerable advantage to make clear to the public why that step has been taken. Relatively speaking, there would probably be more adult cases under subsection (2)(c) than cases involving young offenders. But the importance of those criteria of failure to respond in the past to non-custodial penalties, the question of protecting the public or the fact that the offence is such that one must impose a custodial sentence because a non-custodial sentence would not be justified, are matters which the public should know about in each case and would form the basis upon which other courts would be able to see that the policy of dealing with custodial powers is a consistent one.
In the case of a young offender, there would be consistency between one court and another. Those who were concerned with Clause 111 were particularly interested and regarded it as being particularly important to have such a provision on the statute book. The need for consistency is just as important when one deals with adult offenders. For that reason I wish to support the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of this new clause would be to extend to adults a restriction which the Bill already imposes on the use of custody for young offenders. On the whole, we should prefer to give emphasis to the guidance of the Court of Appeal on
664
the sparing use of custody and on the energy and imagination of the probation service in developing demanding alternatives to custody and ensuring that the courts are fully aware of their existence.
Nevertheless, we were ready, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, to accept amendments introducing the restrictions which are now in Section 1(4) of the Act. During consideration of this Bill's predecessor in another place, we were glad to read some changes in the language of that section which seemed to us to improve it.
The question is whether the same restrictions should apply where the court is contemplating imposing a sentence of imprisonment on someone over 21. My instinct is that, understandable as this suggestion is, it would not be a desirable course to follow. Whatever view one takes of effectiveness, Section 1(4) as it will stand once the Bill is enacted highlights the special considerations which apply to young offenders. The argument for avoiding a custodial sentence wherever possible applies to all offenders. But it applies to the young with particular force, and by enacting Section 1(4) Parliament has made it clear that that is its view.
The law already contains one statutory restriction on the use of custody for adults. Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 precludes the imposition of a prison sentence on a person who has not previously served a sentence of imprisonment,
"unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate".
That rather illustrates the point I have been making. It is not that the court should be careless of the effects of prison on an offender with previous custodial experience; quite the contrary. But there is a particular argument for careful and mature reflection before sending someone to prison for the first time.
The Government's policy on the use of imprisonment is quite clear. The most serious offences, especially offences of violence, call for severe prison sentences. However, for the great majority of less serious offences, and especially those which do not involve violence, the emphasis must be on alternatives to custody. Where a custodial sentence is unavoidable, it should be for as short a period as possible. That is the approach which the Court of Appeal has commended in guidelines to the lower courts, and that has our full support.
Bringing about the greatest use of alternatives to custody has two components. In the first place, the powers of the courts need to be adequate for the purpose. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 greatly improved the range of non-custodial powers. Provisions for the courts to include specific requirements in probation orders are the statutory peg upon which they can hang the more demanding alternatives to custody. The second component is the availability of schemes to which the offenders can be sent to custody. Since the Government came to office the probation service has expanded considerably and the development of day centres and similar alternatives to custody, to the service's great credit, proceed apace.
The number of probation orders imposed on those aged 21 and over increased from 14,200 in 1979 to

665
21,600 in 1984, an increase of more than 50 per cent. To the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I should say that perhaps hard labour is the wrong word, but some of the community service orders that are now being given are very strict and tough and a good alternative to custody. I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, nodding his agreement, with his experience. I am grateful for that.
I can say that some of the work being undertaken in prisons themselves is fairly tough. One only has to look at the work which some of the prisoners have undertaken at Rollstone. That has been very much appreciated in the local community. There has been a marked shift towards making alternatives to custody—which we are so in favour of when it is right—strict and demanding where necessary.
To sum up, my point is this. There is under Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 a demand on the adults. We want to make a slightly different demand for those under 21. I believe it is right—I am sure that the Committee will agree with me—that we need to differentiate. We need particular emphasis on those under 21. I see what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is driving at, but we ought to keep the difference as it now is.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I find that a disappointing reply, and it does not enable me to shorten my speech in winding up as a more favourable reply would have done.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his support. As to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I say this. No disrespect whatsoever is intended to the judiciary by this amendment; certainly not. But if these guidelines are, as he says, just what the High Court operates now, what on earth can be the objection to their being made statutory or possibly more specific and clear? I find that very difficult to understand.
Consistency is not being applied across the board at all. This is one of the reasons I shall have to speak at greater length than I otherwise would have done. I quote from the report of the Home Office's own research and planning unit. It is called Managing Criminal Justice. It is dated 1985. It contains the findings of a study of the sentencing of adult male offenders in 30 magistrates' courts. I stress the word "adult". The proportionate use of immediate custodial sentences varied from 5 per cent. to 23 per cent. If there is such a variation as that surely there is a very strong case for bringing in statutory guidelines such as this clause suggests.
The same Home Office report goes on to say:
"In particular, some courts fine offenders where others would discharge them or award a custodial or suspended sentence".
Again, this is evidence of gross inconsistency as between courts and even between neighbouring courts. I give another quote from this same most remarkable Home Office document:
"no court spokesman claimed that any attempt was made to achieve consistency with his neighbours or with courts over a wider area or with what was thought to be national practice … they regarded such knowledge as irrelevant to their own decisions or problems".
In the face of such damning evidence, how can the noble Earl dismiss a clause like this which is aimed at improving the consistency of sentencing?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Will the noble Lord give way? Is he talking about the magistrates' courts? If he is, perhaps I may say that there is considerable discussion between magistrates' courts that march one with another around a very wide area. That is to my certain knowledge.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Naturally I am most grateful to hear that from the noble Baroness, whose experience, as we all know, is extremely deep on this front. What I am quoting from is a Home Office research and planning unit report made in 1985. It was specifically related to 30 magistrates' courts, not the High Court. The findings are what I have quoted. They are not my opinions.
I see the Chief Whip frowning, but one of the reasons I am having to make this speech in reply is that I got no change at all from the noble Earl on the Front Bench. I made a great deal of effort to confine this to perhaps five minutes to eight minutes, but I have had no co-operation from the Front Bench. As he himself has said that consistency of sentencing is very important, I have had to adduce these statistics which have been given by the Home Office's own research unit to show that there has been gross inconsistency among magistrates' courts about sentencing policy.
I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to say a word about this inconsistency. As I have said in my opening remarks, one of the purposes of this is to keep offenders out of prison and to apply non-custodial sentences where possible. The other was by statutory means to make much greater efforts towards obtaining consistency of sentencing. That is surely a very important thing and that is what we all want. It is what the Home Secretary has proclaimed that he wants. This is a serious proposal to help to gain consistency of sentencing and I should have hoped for a more amenable response from the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness.I agree that the consistency of practice of the magistrates' courts to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has just referred leaves a little to be desired. I frankly doubt very much whether the noble Lord's amendment would have the effect of solving that problem. As my noble friend Lady Macleod has said, the better approach is through the training of magistrates, local comparisons of practice, and so on. That is what we are encouraging and we are trying to solve the problem which the noble Lord has highlighted. We are doing it in a slightly different way.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very glad to hear that. I think that this is a matter of public confidence and that public confidence in the sentencing policy of magistrates' courts and higher courts would be improved if this clause were inserted into the Bill.
I do not know what the feeling of the Committee is about this amendment. I myself would be quite prepared to withdraw it if the noble Earl would consider it. He has gone half-way by introducing Clause 111 into this Bill. I hope he will go the whole way, or at least consider going the whole way, by

667
applying the principle in Clause 111 to adult offenders. In order to give him time for that due consideration, together with his ministerial colleagues, I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of section 60(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
. In subsection (2) of section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (release on licence of persons serving determinate sentences) there shall be inserted after the words "one third of his sentence", the words "or the specified period".").
The noble Lord said: I should like to say that this is a simple amendment but I could do so only because of its brevity. I am conscious that as I attempt an explanation it will lead into great complexity. This is because so much of our sentencing legislation, in the extraordinary way in which the so many diverse parts interact, is really of labyrinthine complexity. That might be the one proposition that I will succeed in making good by moving this amendment, but not I hope the only one. The only armour I can offer against the tedium of the detail on which I have to embark is the Committee's appreciation of the great importance of the subject.
The amendment is designed to remedy that which I hope the noble Earl, on due consideration, will agree is a major injustice to prisoners in custody on remand awaiting trial. Put at its shortest, the object of this amendment is to allow time spent on remand in custody to count towards the minimum period which a prisoner must serve before he becomes eligible for release on licence; that is, on parole. At present, time spent in custody on remand does not count in this way. The result is what I hope the noble Earl will consider is a major injustice; that is, that large numbers of offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment in the 12 months-to-two-years range are deprived of any effective credit for the time that they have spent in custody on remand. Indeed, there are many other anomalies.
The legislative story is complicated. It all depends on the interaction of three aspects: remission, the credit against sentence that is given for time served on remand before sentence, and parole. Remission is governed by rule 5, as amended, of the Prison Rules 1964. The effect is that remission of one-third of a nominal term of a sentence of imprisonment of more than five days may be granted, and generally is, so long as the actual term of the sentence is not reduced to less than five days. That same rule applies to youth custody centres and detention centre orders.
Secondly, credit is given against the nominal term of the sentence for time spent on remand before sentence. That is governed by Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The effect is that the nominal term of a sentence of imprisonment is reduced by any period which has been spent in custody in connection with the proceedings relating to the sentence.
I give the Committee this example. The man who has spent three months in custody on remand and
668
then receives a nine-month sentence receives full credit for his three months on remand. His actual term is six months; that is, nine months minus three months. His remission is half of the total of the actual term plus the period spent on remand; that is, half of nine months, which is four-and-a-half months. Therefore, he is out after serving one-and-a-half months of his sentence, having already spent three months in custody on remand. He has had full credit for three months spent on remand prior to sentence. Therefore, he is in no different a position with regard to time spent in custody from the position in which he would have been had he spent no time in custody on remand but had gone inside for nine months immediately after sentence. One-half remission would have been four-and-a-half months inside and then release.
I hope the noble Earl will consider the important point of parole or release on licence. This is governed by Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, as amended, which states that the Secretary of State may release a prisoner on licence after he has served one-third of his sentence or the "specified period", whichever is the greater. The specified period now is six months. These are called Section 33 case prisoners or, more accurately, the Criminal Justice Act 1967, Section 61A as substituted by Section 33. He can be released after serving one-third of his sentence or six months, whichever is the greater.
I now deal with the injustices which flow from the fact that time spent in custody on remand does not count against a specified period of six months. It is best approached, first, from straightforward cases of imprisonment after sentence not preceded by any remand in custody.
The report of the Parole Board for 1985 shows that almost 80 per cent. of eligible Section 33 prisoners are released on licence. Therefore, for the great majority of persons who are sentenced to terms varying from 12 to 18 months' imprisonment, whether the judge says 12, 15 or 18 months makes no difference whatever. The sentencing judge would delude himself, as would the observing public, if they thought it would make any difference to the overwhelming majority of cases what the judge declared the sentence to be. All are eligible to be released on licence after serving whichever is the greater—one-third of the sentence or six months; that is, six months in all those cases where the sentence the judge has declared is 12, 15 or 18 months. In practice about 80 per cent. are dealt with in that way.
The injustice is that although time spent in custody on remand counts against sentence, it does not count towards the minimum qualifying period of six months of his sentence which he must serve before becoming eligible for parole. Therefore, let us take two cases: first, six months in custody on remand followed by a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. The six months in custody counts against the sentence so the actual term becomes 12 months. Against this he can expect remission of one-third of 18 months—that is, six months. Therefore, after a further six months in prison he comes out and he has been in custody 12 months in all.
Secondly, there is the example of the man who has been on bail for the same offence and is sentenced to

669
18 months. He has an 80 per cent. chance of being out on licence after six months. Therefore, the first man has been in custody for 12 months and the second for only six for the same offence. In fact one could multiply many examples and the injustice could be greater than that.
Let us take the man who has been sentenced to 15 months after he has been in custody on remand for three-and-a-half months. His actual term is therefore 11½ months. Remission of one-third of 15 months—five months—takes his remission to six and a half months. Though he becomes legally eligible for release on licence after six months, his licence period would be less than 30 days, but the Secretary of State has declared that periods on licence may not be less than 30 days. Therefore, he has to serve his period of six-and-a-half months on top of his three-and-a-half months in custody on remand. In effect, therefore, he is in custody for a total of 10 months, compared with his co-defendant, who was on bail and received the same 15-month sentence and who in all likelihood would be released on licence after only six months.
I could multiply these illustrations but I shall not do so because I am conscious of how indigestible is such material even in Committee. The result is that large numbers of offenders sentenced to terms in the intermediate sentencing bracket are either deprived of any effective credit or receive much less credit than they should for long periods of time spent in custody on remand due to the backlog of cases awaiting trial. I believe that the average waiting time for trial of those committed in custody is 10·1 weeks throughout the country, but in London it is as long as 15·9 weeks. If the public were fully conscious of the anomalies to which I have been calling attention, they would regard them as quite irrational, requiring correction by Parliament.
I ask the noble Earl to consider whether my amendment, simply expressed, could provide a remedy. As I said at the outset, I am conscious of the complexities and that even this Committee is perhaps not the best place to discuss legislative complexities of this order. Perhaps the noble Earl and his advisers will give thought to these anomalies and I should be happy to hear from him in any manner he chooses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, explained, this new clause would amend the Criminal Justice Act 1967 so that time spent remanded in custody would count towards the minimum qualifying period for parole. At present remand time is taken into account in calculating whether an offender has served a third of his sentence and may therefore be eligible for parole, but Section 60 of the 1967 Act operates in such a way that the period between the point when sentence is passed and parole eligibility is never less than the specified minimum, which is at present six months.
The reason for this is that there needs to be a reasonable period after sentence in which to assess whether the offender should be granted parole. It would be wrong to commence such an assessment during the period of remand because the accused person must be presumed innocent and may well be acquitted. The offender's reaction to his sentence and
670
how he settles down to serving it are also bound to be factors which the parole process should take into account.
I recognise that, as the noble Lord said, the fact that time spent on remand does not count towards the minimum qualifying period can cause two offenders, with the same sentence, one of whom has had a period on remand and the other of whom has not, to become eligible for parole at different times. That has always been a feature of the parole scheme, but I agree that it has been accentuated by the reduction in the qualifying period. It was, among other things, to address apparent anomalies of that kind that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up the review of the parole system which has been mentioned already in our debates today.
I am sure that Mr. Carlisle's committee will want to take careful note of what has been said in this short but very useful debate. Perhaps the noble Lord was right when he said that this is not the Committee in which to make the change. We have such a committee—Mr. Carlisle's committee. I am sure that it will take careful note of what the noble Lord has said. I add only one observation. One of the criticisms which has been levelled at the reduced minimum qualifying period is that it allows too little time for an adequate assessment to be made on the basis of which a decision as to parole can be taken. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment might in a sense make matters worse, because an offender who had spent a significant period on remand would become eligible for parole at the point of sentence or very soon afterwards.
I must stop because I am already trespsassing on the Parole Review Committee's territory, but I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that, irrespective of the merits, it would be premature to take his amendment further while the review is going on.
Before I finish I should like to say to the noble Lord how very nice it is to see him at the Dispatch Box for the first time. I give him a very warm welcome.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall have to consider what the noble Earl has said, as I daresay he will desire to examine what I have said, in Hansard. Meanwhile I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of section 67(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
.—(1) At the end of section 67(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there shall be added—" and
(c) to orders made under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (detention of juveniles), as it applies to sentences of imprisonment."
(2) In paragraph (b) of section 67(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the words "as it applies to sentences of imprisonment" shall be omitted.")
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl has been good enough to indicate to me that it would be of assistance if I spoke not only to this amendment but at the same time to Amendment No. 72. That I am happy to do.
On Amendment No. 71 the position is that detention under Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was originally intended to provide for juveniles convicted of a limited range of extremely grave crimes. Its scope was widened by the Criminal Justice Act 1961 to apply to any crime punishable with 14 years' imprisonment or more. The gradual process of increasing maximum sentences since that time has brought more offences within its scope. It has been used more frequently in recent years to deal with juveniles convicted of moderately serious offences such as burglary as a result of the restriction of youth custody in such cases to a maximum of 12 months.
The courts have comparatively recently approved the use of the power in cases in which a sentence of two years would be appropriate for an older offender. The term of detention is fixed by the court. The offender can be released at any time during the sentence on licence but he does not receive credit for time spent in custody before conviction or sentence, nor does he receive remission of one-third of the sentence. The effect of the amendment is that time spent in custody, which would count against a detention centre order or a youth custody sentence, will also count against this class of detention for serious or moderately serious crimes.
I urge the noble Earl to say that he feels able to give serious consideration to this proposal. I am conscious that he has indicated that he is not minded to favour this amendment but that he is ready to consider Amendment No. 72, which I am about to move. However, I hope in the light of what he has said that he will feel able to consider Amendment No. 71.
In the light of the indication I have received about Amendment No. 72 I can take it very shortly. The effect is that time spent away from home in local authority care in such an establishment should count towards a youth custody sentence or, having regard to Amendment No. 71, an order under Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act. Because this time does not count, the Court of Appeal has said that judges should take this period into account in imposing youth custody sentences or orders for detention under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act. The effect of this amendment would be to make that automatic and to relieve the judge of the responsibility for remembering what in the sentencing context is an unusual detail that he could very well overlook.
It may be that because of that consideration the noble Earl has indicated he is willing to consider this amendment. However, in the light of what I have also said on the previous amendment I hope that he will likewise feel able to consider that.
Lord Windlesham: I support the proposal that this group of young offenders who have been convicted of serious offences and sentenced under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 should be considered by the parole system review which is now taking place. The position in which these young people are placed is markedly less favourable than other convicted offenders—this was not brought out in the speech of the noble Lord moving these
672
amendments—because there is no entitlement to parole or remission. They are sentenced under old legislation which preceded both the entitlement to remission and the parole scheme. These youngsters will have been convicted at any age from the age of criminal responsibility upwards of committing offences of homicide and other grave matters.
The Home Secretary may refer such cases to the Parole Board at any point in the sentence up to the final date when the sentence expires. He is not required to do so at any stage. Sometimes cases will be referred at the one-third point, in other words the stage at which they would have been reviewed had a young offender been sentenced and eligible for a period of youth custody. Remember that some of these children are sentenced from the age of 12 onwards, which may be too young to incur liability for youth custody. They may be detained in community homes or in the admirable youth treatment centres. Reports may indicate that it would not be wise for them to be released from these institutions during the period of their maximum sentence. The result is that in certain instances—and I have reviewed numerous cases myself with my colleagues on the Parole Board—we see a young person who has been sentenced under this legislation, for example to not more than five years' detention, who has no entitlement to parole or to remission and who may serve the full period of five years. That is a disproportionately long period compared with what would be the case if the sentence had been one of youth custody. The Parole Board will be asking the Carlisle committee to review the provisions of Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act in order to see if some statutory entitlement might be made for early release in suitable cases.
The concept behind this Act was one of treatment, as with Borstal training. Hence the justification for detention up to a maximum period. But practice has changed so much over the last 50 years or so, that these young people are at a disadvantage which I believe is no longer justified.
The Earl of Caithness: We have some sympathy with the objectives of these two amendments, but see difficulties in each, which perhaps I may explain to the Committee. Amendment No. 71 would ensure that time spent on remand in custody by a juvenile who was subsequently sentenced to be detained under Section 53(2) would count towards the term of the sentence. On the face of it, it seems sensible that the juvenile should, as it were, get credit for the time spent on remand. But there are practical obstacles.
Section 52(2) sentences, although determinate, are unlike the other custodial sentences available for juveniles in certain respects, most importantly as regards the arrangements for release. For the other custodial sentences, time spent on remand in custody and remission are taken into account in calculating offenders' earliest date of release. For Section 53(2) sentences, there is no specified earliest date of release, and the date of release is determined in the light of periodic reviews of the offender's progress. As a consequence, allowance for time spent on remand in custody would have nothing on which to bite except the latest date of release, which is usually no more

673
than a nominal target. We therefore doubt whether counting remand time in the way proposed in Amendment No. 71 would serve any practical purpose. But this is a matter which bears on the review of the parole system, to which reference has been made earlier in our debates today. In view of what has been said in this short debate, I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of the Carlisle committee, and I hope that the noble Lord will be content to leave it on that basis.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that his committee will also draw it to the attention of the Carlisle committee, so that this is not a matter which will be lost if the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Amendment No. 72 raises an issue which the Magistrates' Association have already put to us. Remand to local authority secure accommodation is of course not directly comparable with a full custodial remand. It does, however, involve deprivation of liberty and quite severe restrictions on what the remanded young offender can do.
When this matter was debated briefly in another place during the passage of the earlier Bill, we agreed that there is a good case in equity to be made for allowing time spent in local authority secure accommodation to count towards any eventual custodial sentence. It would clearly be wrong if the young offender, whose case was considered sufficiently serious exceptionally to justify remand in custody, were to benefit, while his co-defendant, who spent the same remand time in secure care and perhaps received the same sentence, did not.
The question is how one achieves that result. In the guidance the Home Office issued after the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the courts were encouraged, in deciding on the right sentence, to take into account the length or time of a remand in care, its circumstances and whether it involved a placement in secure accommodation. Concurrently DHSS guidance to local authorities encourages them to provide the courts with a written account of time spent on remand in care, paying particular attention to time spent in secure accommodation.
The reason we adopted the non-statutory approach, through guidance, rather than simply providing in statute that remand time in secure care should count towards sentence, is this. Secure accommodation is not used in quite the same way as custodial accommodation. When someone is remanded in custody, that person remains there until his or her next appearance in court. However, the use of secure accommodation is only one of the options open to a social services department to whom a juvenile is remanded pending trial. Quite sensibly, local authorities resort to the use of secure accommodation as sparingly as possible. The same child may be moved in and out of secure accommodation depending on its availability and how necessary its use is perceived to be at different times during the period of remand. The consequence is that the calculation is not nearly as clear-cut, and our fear has been that a strict statutory requirement would be difficult for the courts and the local authorities to discharge, and could give rise to argument.
674
For these reasons we have hesitated to accept the cogent arguments of the Magistrates' Association and others for putting the existing informal practice into statutory form. In the debate to which I have referred in another place, my honourable friend undertook to look again at the existing arrangements. We have done so and our impression is that local authorities are improving their means of providing the necessary information, and that for the most part the arrangements are working reasonably well.
In the light of that I am therefore willing to take Amendment No. 72 away, and to reflect further on whether the obstacles to a statutory requirement are really insuperable. I could not accept the amendment as it stands because it goes somewhat wider than secure accommodation. But we shall look at the case for accepting a more limited amendment confined in that way.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his helpful speech. His knowledge and experience on these subjects is so much greater than that of any of the rest of us. I am grateful too to the noble Earl for the sympathies that he has expressed for the thoughts that lay behind these amendments. On Amendment No. 71 I gather that the Carlisle committee may gain some assistance from the discussion in this Committee that the amendment has produced. I am pleased to hear that the noble Earl will consider Amendment No. 72 further and perhaps produce some more limited version. In these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clauses 45 to 50 agreed to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Assessment of fines in proportion to means.
. (1) Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended by inserting the words "whether small or substantial" after the words "the means", and by inserting at the end of that section the words "and shall impose a fine which shall comprise a proper proportion of those means."
(2) The following section shall be inserted after section 34A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—
"Fixing amount of fine.
34B. In fixing the amount of a fine, the Crown Court shall take into consideration among other things the means, whether small or substantial, of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court, and shall impose a fine which shall comprise a proper proportion of those means.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment, which I understand is grouped with Amendment No. 77 which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will move in due course, is intended to give consideration to what has been called "the great fines anomaly". My attention has been drawn to it by the able and experienced Clerk of the Justices of Bedwellty, but in replying to the debate, I shall not insist that the noble Earl repeats that famous place.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble and learned Lord would be horrified if I tried to do so.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The matter arises in this way. Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 reads,
"In fixing the amount of a fine, a magistrates' court shall take into consideration among other things the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court".
That would seem to be a fairly straightforward matter. A fine after all is a punishment and for a punishment to fall evenly it should vary according to the nature of the crime and to the means of the defendant. But unhappily some Court of Appeal decisions have apparently resulted in the position that, while a fine may be reduced because a defendant does not have the means to pay the assessed amount, it cannot be increased even if he is so wealthy as to find the assessed amount to be so trivial as to be no punishment to him at all.
An example of what has apparently occurred has been given by Mr. John Jenkins. An Arabian prince, a nephew of the King of Saudi Arabia, arrived at court, apparently in a chauffeur-driven Mercedes, and gave an address in Belgravia. He was fined £250 for possessing cocaine and cannabis—a sum which I am advised is about the norm for an average wage—a grave and serious offence. One wonders where justice lies when a man can buy himself out of criminal responsibility by paying a sum that hardly registers in his bank account.
The matter could well be disposed of by a further decision of the Court of Appeal, but one would have to await for that to arise. The matter arises by reason of decisions in two cases—the Queen v. Fairbairn in 1980 and the Queen v. Clemenson in 1985—which make the case for what is apparently present fining practice.
Fairbairn's judgment says:
"In principle the amount of the fine should be determined in relation to the gravity of the offence"—
Fine, but then—
"Only then should the offender's means be considered to decide whether he has the capacity to pay such an amount".
In Clemenson's case the decision apparently is:
"The proper approach is to decide what is appropriate for the offence and for the offender, and then to consider, having considered what prima facie is an appropriate financial penalty, whether he or she is capable of paying a penalty of these proportions".
One can go down, but apparently never up, to meet the means of a person in a better position to pay a fine appropriate to the offence.
The matter has been put, if I may say so with great respect, accurately in a judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the Queen v. Jamieson—-a 1975 Court of Appeal case. The binding judgments are of course the most recent in the Court of Appeal. The noble and learned Lord said:
"There are two other principles to be observed when imposing a sentence such as this"—
it was a fine—
"The first is that sentence must always be linked with the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the particular circumstances of the offence."
He wisely added:
"Indeed, a sentence derives its character and justice or injustice from a combination of those two sets of factors".
676
The matter has been put equally clearly and, if I may say so again with respect, equally accurately, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, in the Queen v. Stephens in 1975:
"It is axiomatic that when fines are imposed the scale of the fine must be related to the defendant's means".
In another case it has been said:
"It is right of course that the judge should have had regard to the means of the appellant in order to ensure that the fine did have the effect of punishing him".
It is to deal with that apparent judicial confusion that I have put down this amendment which would put the matter beyond peradventure. I am bound to say that I am doing it tentatively, because it may well be that the Home Office has decided upon this already or may have found some other way of dealing with what seems to be the great fines dilemma, if indeed it be what it seems to be, as I think it is.
The proposal made in the amendment is to put the matter beyond peradventure:
"Section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall he amended by inserting the words 'whether small or substantial' after the words 'the means', and by inserting at the end of that section the words 'and shall impose a fine which shall comprise a proper proportion of those means'.".
The section would then read:
"In fixing the amount of a fine, a magistrates' court shall take into consideration among other things the means, whether small or substantial, of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or arc known to the court".
In relation to the Crown Court, it is proposed that a section shall be inserted after Section 34A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973:
"In fixing the amount of a fine, the Crown Court shall take into consideration among other things the means, whether small or substantial, of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court …".
On giving the matter further reflection, I am content to stop there and not conclude with the rest of the amendment.
In a sense, this is a probing amendment. It may be that something has been missed out by my honourable friend from Bedwelty of which neither he nor I are aware. So that the matter can be clarified, I beg to move.
Lord Denning: When I read the amendment, so well put by my noble and learned friend, I wondered why on earth it was necessary. The words of the section as they stand are perfectly clear:
"The Crown Court shall take into consideration among other things the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed so far as they appear or are known to the court".
There is no need for all these extra words.
However, my noble and learned friend shows they have been getting into trouble in Wales. I know Mr. John Jenkins. He is one of the best of the justices' clerks in Wales. If he is troubled by this, it is right for my noble and learned friend to bring the matter before the Committee.
I should have thought that the words were unnecessary. The words of my noble and learned friends Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill, which my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has quoted, should be enough. A circular from the Home Office or an authoritative statement should be issued

677
to show the magistrates that they have a complete discretion in the matter and should take into account the means, whether substantial or small, and all circumstances and impose a fine which is a proper proportion of those means.
There is no need for the amendment, but there is a need for some clarification by the proper authority so that the magistrates in Wales can do what is right.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I just wish to add that I have not suggested that it was any personal responsibility of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who was Master of the Rolls and in charge of these courts at the material time.
Lord Renton: I too doubt the need for this proposed provision. Apart from whether there is a need for it, the method seems to produce its own problems. Requiring in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) that the court:
"shall impose a fine which shall comprise a proper proportion of those means"
gives rise to difficulties. It indicates that there should be great precision in the fixing of the proper proportion. One cannot begin to be precise about that matter until one has had a full and precise inquiry as to the means.
People's means vary. Those whose means depend, for example, upon the state of the stock market have means which vary from day to day and almost hour to hour. It would be a clever rich man who could tell you how many thousands of pounds he was worth at any particular moment.
But I see a further problem arising from what is proposed. Even though the court were to arrive at what it considers to be a proper proportion of those means, that would not necessarily reflect what should be the amount of the fine bearing in mind the nature and seriousness of the offence and bearing in mind particularly the maximum penalty which has been fixed by Parliament. Parliament fixes a maximum penalty in nearly all cases. Of course there are occasions when there is no limit fixed by statute but in most cases which come before the magistrates there is a limit.
Therefore, what the magistrates do, and I think it is all that they should be expected to do, is to consider, first, the statutory maximum, and, secondly, what proportion of that maximum would be the appropriate punishment bearing in mind the nature and seriousness of the offence; and they do not ignore, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has pointed out, the means of the person concerned in a broad way. I would not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to regard these proposals with much sympathy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I would only add a word to what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. I am bound to say that I am a little disturbed at the task that this would impose on the courts. Somebody appears before them and they are asked to determine what fine would represent a proper proportion of that person's means. How on earth are they to find out what those means are? Are they to ask for a sort of
678
income tax return? Indeed are they to ask the Inland Revenue, in breach, I should have thought, of its duty, to hand over information about this?
It seems that all a court can do is to form sensibly a judgment from the look of the person. If you are going to have a thing like this put in, then the advice that everyone will give to someone appearing before a court would be to put on a pair of old jeans, torn at the knee, and a dirty old sweater and look as poor as possible when they make their court appearance.
There is a further point. What is to happen about an appeal against sentence if the magistrates say, "You shall pay so much because it is a proper proportion of your means"? Is it to be open then to the person concerned to go on appeal and produce the whole detail of his means so as to show that it has got it wrong? If he does show that, what possible way has the prosecution of proving him wrong?
This imposes a quite unnecessary, elaborate and complicated duty on the courts, whereas one knows perfectly well that they adopt a generally sensible line and can form a reasonable idea as to the financial background of those in front of them and make a judgment. But when you ask for a correct proportion of their means you are putting a duty of precision on them which I should have thought was impossible to discharge.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Not even my affection for my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones can prevent my saying that this amendment seeks to insert in the statute book a mass of quite unnecessary verbiage when it is already too full of such matter.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I know that my Amendment No. 77 has been grouped with this amendment, but it might be more convenient to speak to it separately if only because it is not concerned with means but with disposable income. I think they are separable and would be better treated separately.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I respectfully agree. Let me say now that I abandon the proportionality part of the drafting.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. The fine is the most commonly used of all our penalties and it is important that it should be fully and properly used as a penalty. Dealing with his amendment, this raises the interesting question of whether the court should have a discretion to impose a more severe fine on a wealthy defendant just as it can, and should, impose a smaller fine on a poor defendant. Undoubtedly a modest fine is less of a penalty to a rich offender than a poor one, and I can see the argument that there is some injustice in that. But I do not think that we can easily overturn our present system of fines. This is based on the principle that the gravity of the particular offence is assessed in financial terms, perhaps £50, £100, or £200, and then

679
the courts look at the means of the offender to see whether he can afford it or if the level of the fine needs to be reduced.
Each offence has a maximum financial penalty which the court may not exceed in fining anyone, because to do so would be out of proportion to the offence. A purely means-related system would undermine this approach. It would be possible theoretically for someone to be fined hundreds of pounds for a modest offence such as dropping litter just because he was rich. Financially it would be fairer, but does not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, wonder whether it would accord with our general notions of justice for, say, a rich offender to be fined for dropping litter many times more than a poorer one who committed offences of deliberate dishonesty? I would defer judgment on that, but I think the question needs to be addressed. There is arguably a point where justice and proportionality to means begin to pull against each other, if not conflict.
Although discussion of the subject of the second amendment overlaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, does not want to discuss it now I shall not, but some of the points that can be made on Amendment No. 73 can clearly be made on the noble Lord's amendment, and I fear that I shall have to repeat myself at a later stage. Meanwhile, with the support that I seem to have from all around the Chamber, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I certainly give the withdrawal my support. It was nevertheless right that the matter should be raised. If the case of the Arabian prince turning up in his Rolls-Royce and getting fined £250, or whatever it was, is grotesque, there is a need for the matter to be looked at again. It is not a frivolity. It is capable of creating a grave sense of injustice. But I am happy that in the circumstances the shot that has been made from Bedwellty and Llanelly should not be pursued.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 51 agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 73A:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960.
. In section 41(1) of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 after the words "detain any game or rabbits, or" there shall be inserted the words "any dog or" and after the word "possession" there shall be inserted the words ", or any vehicle found in his charge".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would bring the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 in line with the Deer Acts and indeed the Fisheries Protection Act, both of which allow property that is used when committing an offence to be confiscated by the police and indeed the courts. At the moment so far as the Game Laws (Amendment) Act is concerned only the weapon may be confiscated and not the vehicle or the dogs used to commit an offence.
I realise that Section 43(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, to be replaced in part by
680
Clause 59 of this Bill, widens the powers of confiscation to the magistrates' courts but only up to Level 5, and I suggest that in this case the level would only be 4, which is not sufficient to confiscate a car—except, of course, possibly mine.
However, the powers contained in Clause 59 allow confiscation in only two instances: first, if the property has already been lawfully seized; secondly, if the property was in the person's possession or under their control when apprehended. The Committee will appreciate that the first case cannot apply. As regards the second case, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the courts to be sure that it was that particular vehicle, or those particular dogs, that were used in the offence. In any event, I am advised that the powers do not extend to dogs. In practice it is not possible for the courts so to do, and I could quote specific cases if the Committee wished but I fear the displeasure of wasting time.
I conclude by giving three reasons why I hope the Committee will accept this tidying up measure. First, poaching, particularly with lurcher dogs, is not done by the traditional village poacher with whom I suspect many of us have a love-hate relationship. This type of poaching is carried out by gangs of usually violent people who inflict great cruelty and often train their dogs for pursuits other than hares or rabbits—not least deer—cattle and sheep.
Secondly, this Chamber and the Government are always asking for better, cheaper and more appropriate punishment for crime rather than gaol sentences. I could not agree more because the few contacts that I have had with prison leave me less than enthralled. I suggest that confiscation of the vehicles and the dogs is a far more effective punishment than is a gaol sentence. Moreover, the confiscation and punishment will be immediate, and I am sure that every member of the Committee will agree that punishment for whatever crime is much more effective if carried out immediately.
Thirdly, this kind of trespass is to the detriment of all who want to enjoy our countryside, particularly those who wish to walk in it. I hope therefore that my noble friend will accept this amendment as a small but particularly helpful addition to providing an appropriate and effective remedy to meet this increasingly tiresome and dangerous problem. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. However, I hope that he will not mind my saying that confiscation is not normally regarded as a form of punishment or a punishment in addition to the normal punishment. Confiscation is intended to prevent the crime from being committed again by the same people. That does not invalidate my noble friend's argument. I trust that I am not presuming too much when I say that I hope my remark clarifies the case he has put forward and perhaps strengthens it.
Lord Denning: This amendment deals only with the seizing of the dog or the vehicles. The next clause deals with the forfeiture. If it is to be carried its whole length it should go into the following clause requiring forfeiture of the dog or the vehicle.
The Earl of Caithness: We move from courts and prisons to some of the individuals who may pass through them. I share the concern over the disgraceful activities of poachers which has prompted this amendment. I must advise, however, against adoption of the amendment.
As my noble friend has explained, the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 provides, in Section 4(1), for the seizure by the police of items such as guns, nets and snares which are in the possession of a person apprehended on suspicion of poaching. Items so seized can, on the order of the court, be forfeited upon the conviction of the offender, by virtue of Section 4(2) of the 1960 Act. My noble friend seeks to add dogs and vehicles to the list of items which may be seized, and forfeited, under the 1960 Act.
The seizure by the police of evidence of an offence is provided for in Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. By virtue of this general provision if the police believe that a dog or a vehicle in the possession of a suspected poacher is likely to be needed as evidence in any proceedings they may seize it. The Committee will recall, however, that the intention of this part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is that the police will only seize evidence where this is strictly necessary, for example to prevent the deliberate destruction of the item concerned.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed only after the most painstaking examination of the difficult issues of police powers and the freedoms of the individual citizen. It is clearly right that the police should have power to seize any relevant article of evidence and this is provided for under strict controls in Section 19 of the 1984 Act. To go further than that and give the police power to seize property which is not required for evidential purposes would be to go contrary to the letter and spirit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I believe that would be most undesirable, and many members of the Committee will share that view. The 1984 Act already gives the police the seizure powers which they need for the investigation of offences and any subsequent prosecution, whether in respect of poaching or any other offence. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Renton, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Stanley will be reassured by that.
However, I can give my noble friend a more encouraging response as regards forfeiture. Clause 59 of the Bill which we are now considering provides for an important extension of the forfeiture provisions in Section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. If this clause is passed, when convicting a poacher the courts will, subject to certain financial limits, be able to offer the forfeiture of items either seized by the police or in his possession or under his control when he was apprehended.
I hope that my noble friend will take some reassurance from that. I should like to reflect further on what he has said, look at it again in the Official Report and perhaps come back to him between now and another stage.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said in that last sentence. I am
682
also grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton, and I fully take his point.
I should like to pick up the odd point made by my noble friend. First, he drew to my attention the financial limit. As I tried to point out in my first address, the snag is that they will be able to do so only up to Level 4. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will know but I believe that Level 4 is £1,000 or £1,100. Most cars are worth more than that amount so that case will not apply.
My noble friend quoted Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I should like to put on record the following points so that he may consider them between now and Report stage. First, I am concerned as to whether a dog is "any thing". I suppose that it must be but I am told that it might not be "any thing". Secondly the seizure must be on premises. Section 23 of the Act describes premises. I am aware of this matter because my noble friend was kind enough to tell me that he might quote this against me and so I bothered to look it up. In Section 23 of the Act "premises" is described as a place. I am advised by my lawyers that a field is not a place, so that matter needs looking into.
My noble friend made the more important point that Section 19 of the Act provides only for seizure as evidence, so at the end of the day the courts will not be able to confiscate the vehicle or the dogs despite Clause 59 of the Bill, even if they wanted to do so. The point of my amendment is to give the courts more discretion. So I do not think I can entirely agree with my noble friend but I am very grateful to him for looking at it. Perhaps I may come back to him between now and the Report stage to see whether we can get this matter right because I feel, or hope, that most Members of the Committee will agree that to give this extra power to the magistrates' court indeed helps them in certain circumstances. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Increased periods of imprisonment for default]:
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 74:
Leave out Clause 52 and insert the following new clause:
("Reduced periods of imprisonment, for defaults on fines.
. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 31(3A) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973—
"(3A) Subject to subsections (3B) and (3C) below, the periods set out in the second column of the following table shall be the maximum periods of imprisonment or detention under subsection (2) above applicable respectively to the amounts set out opposite thereto.

TABLE

An amount not exceeding £50

5 days

An amount exceeding £50 but not exceeding £100

7 days

An amount exceeding £100 but not exceeding £400

14 days

An amount exceeding £400 but not exceeding £1,000

30 days

An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,000

45 days

An amount exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £5,000

3 months

An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000

6 months

An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000

12 months

An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000

18 months

An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000

2 years

An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000

3 years

An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million

5 years

An amount exceeding £1 million

10 years."")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which would reduce the maximum periods of imprisonment for defaulting on fines of up to £10,000. I realise that we shall be discussing the question of fines in the next amendment, but most of us accept that imprisonment must stay as the last resort for those who wilfully will not pay them. I think that that is generally accepted, though obviously it is incumbent upon courts to avoid imposing sentences of imprisonment if possible.
I think we also accept that the threat of imprisonment can induce payment by some offenders who have hitherto resisted paying their fines. There is a lot of evidence to show that some people wait until the last possible moment and then, spurred by the realisation that if they do not pay the fine they will go to prison, they pay up. However, without a great deal of difficulty I would argue that in those cases it is the prospect of imprisonment, and not the precise period involved which is the most important consideration.
That being so, I do not believe that anything would be lost through a reduction in the length of time served for fine default. Yet an amendment on those lines could have some effect in reducing the average daily number of fine defaulters in prison. Last year on any one day there was an average of 511 people in prison for fine default, which is roughly the population of a medium sized prison.
Part of the case for change—and this is not a particularly radical change—was demonstrated by what was done in 1977 when Parliament was looking at what became the Criminal Law Act of that year. It is always a temptation to go down memory lane, but on that occasion I remember that Mr. Brynmor John who was the Junior Minister responsible for the criminal law department of the Home Office and I,—I then occupied the same position as does the noble Earl today—decided to cut the maximum periods of imprisonment for fine default. As a result, on the 30th June 1978, which was just about a year after that particular piece of legislation had been placed on the statute book, one saw a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of fine defaulters in a single year. Since then there has been a further welcome decrease in the average length of time served by fine defaulters. This amendment will reinforce that trend.
As I indicated, last year the average daily population of fine defaulters was just over 500, but that constituted 11 per cent. of all prisoners who were serving sentences of six months or less. Since such prisoners normally serve their sentences in local prisons, where the present overcrowding is at its worst, I believe that an amendment along these lines would have a significant effect—or at least an effect—in relieving pressure in just that part of the system that at the moment is experiencing the greatest difficulty. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has very rightly drawn the attention of the Committee to the problem of fine defaulters in prison. The need to hold some 500 fine defaulters every day is a strain which the prison system could well do without. The noble Lord proposes shorter periods of custody for defaulters as
684
a practical solution. His amendment would certainly have some effect, albeit a marginal one, on the prison population. His suggestion therefore merits very careful consideration. However, having considered it, there are two reasons why I am not persuaded that it is the right path to go down.
The daily population of fine defaulters is a great strain on prison resources, but an even greater one are the numbers coming in and out of the system. Whether a prisoner has seven days or five days to serve, he still has to go through reception procedures when he arrives and discharge procedures when he leaves. That is the biggest demand on prison manpower; and of course it hits hardest at the overstretched local prisons. So we need to bend our efforts toward keeping fine defaulters out of prison altogether, wherever possible. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with that.
The starting point is to ensure that fines are pitched at a level which the offender can reasonably be expected to pay. The Home Office issued a circular to the courts in 1984, recommending that some inquiry as to the offender's income and financial commitments should be made before the level of the fine to be imposed is decided. The second step is to ensure effective enforcement procedures and options short of custody. Other options are available, and the courts are required to consider each of them before resorting to custody. The Committee will see that we have spelt out these options on the face of Clause 53. The 1984 circular urged courts to be as flexible as possible in considering these measures. I believe that such steps, which aim at the root of the problem, are proving successful. In 1986 there were 1,300 fewer fine defaulters received into prison than in 1985. The average daily population of fine defaulters was 10 per cent. lower.
Why, then, the Committee may ask, should we not adopt the noble Lord's proposal as an additional useful measure? My concern is for the effectiveness of the fine as a penalty. The Government have made clear that they support wholeheartedly the Court of Appeal's view that for the less serious offences custody should be avoided whenever possible. That means that the courts must have confidence in the effectiveness of non-custodial options. The fine is very widely used: 175,000 people were fined for indictable offences in 1985. The courts must be confident that fines can be enforced, and that sufficient sanctions are available to deter potential non-payers. It would be extremely regrettable if the courts felt obliged to resort to other sentences—including perhaps custodial ones—in cases where they now impose a fine. Less severe sanctions might lead more offenders to regard a short period of custody as "worth it" in order to write off a relatively large sum. That would result in the fine falling into disrepute. I do not think that we can afford to take that risk.
So there is very little between the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the Government on that point. But we think that the level of fine is drawn correctly at the moment. To move in the direction suggested by the noble Lord could lead to some rather nasty repercussions which might be more

685
damaging to the prison service and to the interests of justice than the arrangement that we have at the moment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As courteous as I always try to be in this Chamber, I am nonetheless bound to say that that was one of the least persuasive arguments that I have heard delivered on behalf of the Home Office during this debate. The noble Earl told us that there was very little between us. I rejoice to hear it. However, he went on to say that one of the reasons for his concern was that it might make magistrates less likely to impose a fine and might drive them towards imposing a sentence of imprisonment. I wonder whether he consulted the Magistrates' Association before he made that observation and whether he represents their views.
I should be surprised if such was the magistrates' view because they made no such representations to the Labour Government in 1977 when a far more substantial change was made in the relationships between fines and periods of imprisonment. May I ask him whether magistrates have been invited to give a view?
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord knows full well, we are in constant touch with the Magistrates' Association but we do not necessarily always agree with them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No, but as the noble Earl was putting forward the argument that magistrates would be less likely to fine an offender and might be more likely to send him to prison, I at least assumed that he had been in contact with the Magistrates' Association before making such an observation. Apparently, he has not been in contact with them. I shall not press this amendment today. Quite bluntly, I think that the argument he has put forward is most unimpressive and we will certainly look at it again.
Let me just say this in as even-tempered a way as possible. When the Government Whip tells us that we are not making enough progress on this Bill, he might sometimes consider whether he should have a talk with some of his colleagues to see whether they could take a rather more accommodating position on amendments when they argue that there is very little between the Opposition and the Government. What has been said today is unpersuasive.
I think the noble Earl admitted that the amendment would have some effect on the size of the prison population. The only effect of resisting this amendment is to ensure that marginally—I would not put it higher than that—conditions in local prisons will remain slightly more squalid than they otherwise would be. On the basis of that, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, though as I have indicated I regard this constant opposition to all proposals of this sort as most depressing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Court imprisoning a fine defaulter to give reasons for rejecting all other enforcement options.
. The following section shall be inserted after section 77 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—
"Court's reasons for rejecting enforcement options.
77A— (1) A magistrates' court may not issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying any sum adjudged to he paid by the conviction unless it has considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum and is of the opinion that they are inappropriate or unsuccessful.
(2) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment for default in paying any sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction, it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that all other methods of enforcement of payment of the fine are inappropriate or unsuccessful.
(3) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (2) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register."").
The noble Lord said: I am quite pleased that this amendment should follow so hard on the heels of the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just moved without any success, because in the course of discussing that amendment the noble Earl said that it was important to keep fine defaulters out of prison wherever possible. This amendment is designed to do just that and for that reason I expect a sympathetic reply from him.
What the amendment does is to impose a duty on the magistrates' courts only—I am happy to say not all courts; otherwise I would incur the wrath of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—to give their reasons for rejecting all other enforcement options before imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a fine defaulter. For the life of me I can see no reason why this most reasonable proposal should not he accepted by the Government.
The noble Earl has told us about the immense amount of work caused to the prison authorities by the large number of fine defaulters who go to prison at the moment. In absolute numbers there were over 19,000 in 1986. They may not serve very long, but I ask the Committee to think of the extra work caused to the prison authorities by the 19,000 receptions in terms of processing each offender—not only the receptions but also the discharges and the paper work. That is very substantial, quite regardless of the length of stay of the prisoner.
Lady Howe was chairman in 1981 of a NACRO working party on fine defaulters. It said that although committal to prison must remain, as we all agree, a sanction of last resort, all other means of enforcement should be fully considered first. That working party under Lady Howe recommended precisely what this amendment proposes, that the form which magistrates have to complete stating the reason for committal to prison should be changed to require the court to specify that it has considered every other enforcement option, each of which has either been tried or is not suitable, giving reasons in respect of each enforcement option.
The much respected VERA Institute of Justice published a study in 1986 about this very subject, the enforcement of fines as criminal sanctions. It said that its research showed that the courts rarely use distraint of goods and not very often money payment

687
supervision orders. It seems only sensible that the courts should say what their reasons are for not applying the various penalties which do not include custody. This would not only save a large number of receptions into prison but would also tend towards consistency of sentence. I have to go on repeating that. Being forced to give the reasons is bound to result in greater consistency and we all agree that that is desirable.
I think I need say no more, because I have said enough to prove that this amendment, which emanates from Lady Howe's working party in 1981, does what we all want to do. It would keep fine defaulters out of prison.
Lord Denning: This is a most interesting point. For years magistrates have not always given reasons and it has often been a question of whether they should give reasons. In that regard I often tell them the advice which Lord Mansfield once gave:
"Give your decision but never give your reasons, for your decision may well be right but your reasons are almost certain to be wrong".
That is the trouble. I am afraid that they do not give reasons at the moment because of the difficulty of getting the reasons right. Let us suppose that if they are bound to give reasons they say, "We are of the opinion that all other methods of enforcement of the payment of the fine are inappropriate or unsuccessful". Is that a good reason or a bad reason? Is it to be taken up to a higher court to see whether the reason is good or bad?
Although I much sympathise with the amendment, which would make magistrates concentrate their minds tremendously on what they ought to do, nevertheless I am not sure that it would be very welcome by the magistrates, who would be inexperienced at expressing themselves if they were compelled to give reasons. Much as I sympathise with the proposal, I doubt whether it should be accepted.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My name appears on this amendment and I should like to say one or two words about it because I suggest it is one of the most important matters that magistrates have to deal with. I would only say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that things have advanced since Lord Mansfield's day and justices have to give reasons now in all sorts of situations in law.
That 19,000 people go to prison every year for not paying fines is an astonishing statistic which perhaps the public do not appreciate and it may well be that some Members of the Committee have not appreciated it before. Some magistrates' courts simply do not send non-payers to prison, and if some magistrates' courts can achieve that why cannot all magistrates' courts?
We are very much back to the situation that we have considered on another amendment, the refusal of some magistrates' courts to listen to what other courts are doing and the refusal to be mixed up with and pay attention to those outside the judiciary who have studied these serious problems. As the noble Lord said, the report of Lady Howe's working party is an absolutely fascinating document, full of
688
extraordinary statistics showing the amazing differences between magistrates' courts across the country as to the size of fines in comparative cases, as to the enforcement activity of different courts and as to the collection rate of different courts. They vary enormously.
Surely every magistrates' court should have a collection policy for fines that are not paid. They should have a fine default officer whose job it is to pursue the matter. They should target each individual. They should bring the probation service into it and see that the information of non-payment comes to the court early and quickly and that the person is brought before the court early and quickly. Supervision of defaulters is a tremendous contribution to getting payment in the end, using attachments of earnings, money payment suspension orders, imposing small and varying instalments and using distraint of goods as a threat and so on in the collection of fines.
It is only too easy, as one sees in some courts, simply to have a policy of two or three bites at the cherry, a threat of imprisonment and then imprisonment. It is simpler, it takes little time and it makes one feel nice and satisfied—"We've given him two or three chances and that's over". The truth is that in a large number of cases defendants are simply inadequate people, deprived people, depressed people, who cannot manage their affairs properly. They have to pay their rents, their rates, their hire purchase and so on and they need assistance to ensure that the fines they owe are properly paid. They must not go to prison willingly—as many do, indeed—as a means of geting the pressure of the fine off their backs. Equally they must not be fined as a method of imposing a prison sentence when clearly the offence itself does not warrant it, as we have seen since imprisonment was abolished for prostitution. Surely young persons should never be sent to prison for failing to pay fines.
Can the noble Earl tell the Committee what training magistrates get in this vital area, what contribution computers have made to the early detection of default and how many courts have fine default or enforcement officers; whether statistics are being regularly kept of the percentage of committals, the number of appearances and the time elapsing between the imposition of payment and sending people away to custody; and whether magistrates' courts are being informed of what is happening across the country? This is one area where one could well make a dent on the number of people who are being sent to prison.
Although Clause 53 is to be welcomed, it is one of the most long-winded provisions that I have come across. It would surely be possible to say it all in one quarter of the words used.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has raised a most important matter. As he rightly pointed out, over 19,000 fine defaulters were received into custody in 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that that is a surprisingly high figure. It was put to me recently that it is a surprisingly low

689
figure considering the number of fines issued per annum.
The Government firmly believe that custody should be a last resort, used only when all other measures fail. We have taken positive measures to secure this by means of a circular to the courts. The 1980 Act already contains strict tests. It is encouraging that the number of fine defaulters committed has been falling—by 5,300 between 1982 and 1986.
While we must lose no opportunity to improve enforcement short of custody, I am not persuaded that the noble Lord's amendment will serve any useful purpose. Section 82(6) of the 1980 Act already requires a court issuing a warrant of commitment to specify on it which of the statutory criteria permitting the issue of a warrant have been met. In the case of committal following a means inquiry, the grounds will include the fact that the court has considered or tried all other methods of enforcement and finds them inappropriate or unsuccessful. It is hard to see the requirement to give reasons being more than a pointless encumbrance for the court, which will become condensed into a few stock formulae expressing the court's frustration at a line of postponements.
We have moved some way towards the position of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, though by a slightly different route. As presently drafted, the 1980 Act simply requires the court to have considered "all other means of enforcement". We thought that it would be helpful to spell out on the face of the Act what those options are. This is what Clause 53 does so there will be no question of the court overlooking or not specifically considering any of the options before resorting to custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that this is a horribly long-winded clause. Perhaps I may take that point away and, with my right honourable friend, consider whether we should go back to the wording of the 1980 Act which simply says "all other means of enforcement".
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, mentioned money payment supervision orders. These have been available for the use of the courts under Section 88 of the 1980 Magistrates' Court Act. I agree with the noble Lord that they should be used more. Clause 53 by implication lists them among the other considerations to be addressed by the court before committing to custody.
For the reasons that I have given, I fear that I cannot advise the Committee to support the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will feel that the approach I have described is both practical and constructive.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I thank the Minister for saying that the matter I have raised is most important; unfortunately I do not think that I can thank him for his reply.
The Minister says that the amendment would not serve any useful purpose. That must be a matter of opinion. I have discussed Clause 53 and the amendment with a very experienced magistrate. When I told him the purpose of Clause 53, he asked,
690
"What difference will that make?". I then told him that, under the amendment, the magistrates would give their reasons for not sending fine defaulters to prison. He said, "That really should make a difference. It might force them to concentrate on all the non-custodial options". I am merely expressing another point of view, one that is different from that of the noble Earl, but it happens to be the point of view of an experienced magistrate; I believe that his clerk would agree too. The magistrate believes that it would make a substantial difference.
I ask the noble Earl possibly to respect the spirit of the amendment, partly because I have had the assurance from a magistrate that it would make a substantial difference, whereas he thought that Clause 53 would not; and partly because it is a matter of public confidence. I have stressed this more than once. I do not believe that the reasons would be an encumbrance on the magistrates; nor do I believe that they would boil down to meaningless formulae. I believe that this would represent some special attempt to reduce the number of fine defaulters who go to prison. It would make for consistency of sentence and give public confidence should an amendment on such lines be introduced.
I shall not say any more because the Minister is not in the giving vein this evening. Therefore it would be pointless to press this to a Division. Enough has been said, I would hope, for the Minister to place some kind of importance on the discussion that has taken place today and consider it between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Causing death he reckless driving—increased minimum disqualification period.
(In section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section I of this Act, the court shall order him to be disqualified for such period not less than three years as the court thinks fit unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order him to he disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to he disqualified."").
The noble Lord said: Violent death is always a traumatic event for any family and all the more so when that death is caused by what we loosely call "criminal negligence". When that criminal negligence results in what is now legally termed causing death by reckless driving the feeling of the family and of the public in general are particularly outraged. That is the case no matter whether the driver who killed a fellow human being or human beings was driving under the influence of alcohol, hard drugs, soft drugs or of tranquillisers or whether the driver was stone cold sober and was simply racing another driver along on a motorway, along a crowded suburban street or was overtaking at speed on a 90° bend.
There has been great public indignation at the lenient sentences and minimal periods of disqualification which are too often imposed upon

691
those who, through their negligence, have caused horrible carnage and death. One must emphasise the word "reckless". The law leans over backwards to avoid punishing to any degree those who have killed merely through carelessness: indeed many people think that the law is too lenient in that latter respect. I know that that is something that the North Committee is currently looking into.
I return to the specific question of punishment for causing death through reckless driving. Undoubtedly the recommendations made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice some while ago have had some beneficial effects. I have examined 12 typical press reports of such cases, most of them harrowing, which date from the autumn of 1983.
Three or four years ago prison sentences tended to range from three months suspended to 12 months of which perhaps nine months were suspended, with fines, when they were imposed, of between £80 and £600. Only in exceptional circumstances was a non-suspended sentence of as much as 12 months imposed. Disqualification was generally in the one and a half to three years' bracket.
Since the exhortations of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice sentences seem to have been getting much stiffer, with two, three and three and a half years' imprisonment unsuspended occasionally being imposed and with disqualifications often ranging up to six years. All the same the recommendations of my noble and learned friend are not binding. There are still many instances of seemingly low sentences which infuriate the public.
One can appreciate the judges' dilemma over the question of imposing even longer prison sentences for this offence. That was exemplified by the anecdote which was recounted to us by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning earlier this week.
There are also considerations of prison overcrowding and the burdens an ever-growing prison population imposes upon the taxpayer. That is why I urge the Committee to accept the amendment which is now before us. First, it merely confirms what is rapidly becoming accepted practice in any case and, like the existing law, it contains a let-out clause for the very rare genuinely hard case.
Secondly, its formal acceptance with all the attendant favourable media publicity should take a good deal of the steam out of the popular cry for ever longer prison sentences for this particular offence.
Thirdly, I submit that it has considerable merits independent of the foregoing considerations. The increased minimum disqualification period would to some extent deter. It would certainly keep had drivers off the road for longer than would otherwise be the case, possibly saving lives in the process. It would punish, without punishing the family to the same extent as a prison sentence would, and it would save a great deal of money in comparison with the alternatives.
As far as I am aware there are only two possible objections, both of which I hope to be able to deal with satisfactorily. First, some lawyers, so I am told, although I am sure they cannot be representative of their profession, hold that people should essentially
692
be penalised for their bad behaviour rather than for the fortuitous results of that bad behaviour. In that view the causing of death by reckless driving is no worse from the criminal aspect than the act of reckless driving itself.
Such an attitude must greatly shock the man in the street, and it cannot be healthy for the law to get so out of line with public opinion. It certainly shocks me. As a layman I believe that people should be punished for the harm that they actually do and not for the harm that they might do; I believe that most people in this country feel the same way.
What is more, the excessively purist attitude that is said to be held by some members of the legal profession is in conflict with what actually happens when people are sentenced. Murderers do receive longer sentences than those attempting murder unsuccessfully; rapists do receive longer sentences than those who attempt rape unsuccessfully, and so on and so forth.
The second objection—which perhaps at first glance is slightly stronger—which has occasionally been voiced when I have put forward this suggestion on earlier occasions is that it would fetter the hands of the judiciary. That objection should have been made many years ago, because the judiciary's hands are already fettered by existing road traffic Acts. A judge cannot disqualify somebody who is convicted of causing death by reckless driving for three, six or nine months even if he wants to, except in very specific circumstances—a let-out clause, in effect, which my amendment naturally retains. So no new principle whatever is being introduced. No constitutional conventions of any kind are being challenged.
This is a modest measure which I believe will help to protect innocent members of the public and will further the interests of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal in the amendment. I am no doubt affected, as we all are, by personal feelings. I once lost an old friend as a result of someone committing this identical offence. But trying to put that out of one's mind, there still remains the fact that where someone causes death by reckless driving there is an overwhelming case and, I would suggest, also a very strong public demand for keeping that person off the road for a number of years.
I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put in an escape clause. I personally would be prepared to support a fixed limit of not fewer than three years in all circumstances. If people persist in committing this kind of offence, it seems that they should be discouraged by the knowledge that they will be off the road for a number of years, however inconvenient for them that may be. I hope that, unless my noble friend has some new point on this matter, he will look at any rate with sympathy on this proposal.
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure that all Members of the Committee have great sympathy with the purpose of this amendment, which is to ensure that those convicted of some of the most serious road traffic offences are taken off the roads for a

693
substantial period. There is a great deal of bad driving about and it is only right that the courts should deal severely with those who cause or might have caused death or injury through their selfish and reckless behaviour. But the arguments in favour of the amendment are by no means clear-cut.
There are three grounds why I would not want to accept it. The first is that mandatory penalties are used only sparingly in our system of justice because we believe in allowing the courts to have discretion to tailor the penalty to the individual offender. We already have a mandatory penalty here; but it seems to me that we would need very strong evidence of its inadequacy before we raised it. I do not think one year is inadequate; there are some people, particularly those who rely on driving for their jobs, for whom a year's disqualification is a serious penalty, however well-deserved.
Secondly, where they see fit, the courts may disqualify for much longer than one year, five, seven and even 10 years are not unknown. There is no upper limit on the period of disqualification. Thirdly, disqualification is not the only penalty available to the courts. In fact it is not even the principal one, although I accept that it may often be the one which hurts most. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment for causing death by reckless driving is five years' imprisonment and for reckless driving it is two years' imprisonment. Since causing death by reckless driving is a purely indictable offence it will be covered by the provision for lenient sentences to be referred to the Court of Appeal, for which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, voted.
The courts have wide powers already and I think we should trust them to use their discretion wisely.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely, as my noble friend has admitted that there is already a mandatory penalty available for this offence, he cannot use the argument against mandatory penalties as an argument against this amendment. It is a matter of judgment at what level the minimum mandatory penalty should be fixed. I should have thought that public opinion generally holds—and I hope many Members of the Committee would support it—that a minimum of three years for an offence where, by the seriousness of the reckless driving, death is caused was an appropriate penalty. But in any event, with great respect to my noble friend, he cannot rely on the generalised argument against mandatory penalties, because they are there already.
The Earl of Caithness: With respect to my noble friend, I did not rely on that as an argument. I laid that as a basis within the law and said that we have a mandatory penalty on this, which is one year, and that I would require a lot of evidence to suggest that it was inadequate. Yes, of course one can differ as to whether it should be one year or three years, but the evidence is that it is not inadequate at the moment.
The Earl of Onslow: If the mandatory penalty for being slightly over the limit in respect of drink is one year and the mandatory penalty for killing somebody by dangerous driving is also one year. it seems that our values are slightly askew.
Lord Mishcon: I only want to throw one thought into the discussion, if I may. It may not be known to all Members of your Lordships' Committee that the phrase "special reasons" does not mean what the layman may think it means. "Special reasons" have been limited to special reasons relating to the offence and not special reasons relating to the offender. If therefore you have a minimum sentence of three years and a family is going to be made destitute because a person who has offended relies upon driving for his livelihood—and I am not here to plead for extreme leniency for people who by reckless driving have caused death—one ought to remember that the court would not be able to take into account the factor I have just mentioned or anything relating to special reasons that apply to the offender as such.
I thought I ought to put that to the committee because many Members may not have known that the phrase "special reasons" does not mean in this context what they may think it means.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for their support. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I should like to have omitted the escape clause, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says it does not mean what the layman may think it means. That may be so. However, I thought it would be better not to aim too high, and to select an amendment which would be broadly acceptable to the Committee and also to the other place, which of course would have to examine this amendment if it were to be passed here. He may be aware that a distinguished honourable friend of his in another place put down an amendment to increase the minimum disqualification to 10 years. That was not called by the Speaker, but there is certainly a body of thought in another place which thinks that my amendment is, if anything, rather on the soft side.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, talks about people being rendered destitute: I think that is rather emotive language. Even if a man is disqualified for one year and he is a professional driver, he is going to lose his job anyway. But presumably it is not impossible for him to find a job that does not involve driving.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would my noble friend allow me? Presumably if one is going to be worried about people being rendered destitute, perhaps there is even more reason for us to be worried about people being rendered destitute by the death of the breadwinner, caused by other people's recklessness.
Lord Monson: Of course the noble Lord is absolutely right. Those are the people we should be thinking about first and foremost. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about penalties, and perhaps I concentrated too much upon the punishment aspect. But although I see this partly as punishment I also see it as a means of protecting other road users: I really do not think that these sort of people ought to be on the road. There is perhaps a case for saying they ought to be made to take another driving test before being allowed back on the road again after

695
their period of disqualification, whether it be one, two or three years.
I should like to put this to the noble Earl: suppose the period of disqualification at the present time were already two or three years, perhaps as a result of the Government having been caught off guard late at night when an amendment was going through, would they then seek to reduced the period to one year? I do not really think they would.
I am heartened by the support I sense around me. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division tonight: I want to take it away and think about it and I may perhaps compromise a little on the period of disqualification. While reserving the right to bring it back at a later stage, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Day fine" system.
. A court imposing a fine shall, so far as the disposable income of the offender appears or is known to the court, impose a fine of the number of days' disposable income which it appears to the court that the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender require.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment separately from Amendment No. 73, which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. That is for a number of reasons. It is partly because it does not refer to the means of the offender but refers to,
"the number of days' disposable income [of the offender] which it appears to the court that the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender require".
There is a big difference. I think all of us have been guilty of confusing in ordinary conversational terms "means" and "disposable income". Indeed the Home Secretary himself did when he spoke in January of this year—I forget to whom. He said:
"The use of the fine has been tailored more sensibly to the means of the offender, helping to cut substantially the number of fine defaulters who end up in prison".
I do not know whether he had thought very carefully about the use of the word "means". I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sought to make fun of the previous amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, by referring to the difficulty of establishing someone's means. But it is much easier to establish to the court's satisfaction,
"the number of days' disposable income which it appears to the court that the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender required".
I may say that the day fine is nothing new. It has been proposed before. It was proposed in the other place and it is in effect and working well, so I am told, in Sweden, West Germany and Austria. There—I believe it is the same for all countries—the fine is arrived at by multiplying a number reflecting the gravity of the offence by a sum which varies in proportion to the offender's income. I have some hope of a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl for the first time in this Committee because in another
696
place Mr. David Mellor, when he was Minister of State for the Home Office, said in March 1987:
"we have no objection to this idea being investigated fully and vigorously … The attractions of this scheme are such that it is well worth looking for a practical means of carrying it out".
That was six months ago. The purpose of tabling this amendment and moving it is to press the Government for more details and for a more specific commitment concerning the nature of research, investigation, experiment or whatever it may be which will achieve the result. This is especially so bearing in mind what has been done so successfully in Germany, Sweden and Austria.
I believe that I have been acceding to the wishes of the Chief Whip by moving my amendment in precisely three minutes. I hope that I shall gain some credit in that quarter for that achievement. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The opportunity of earning the Chief Whip's credit is too difficult for me to resist, and I hope that I shall be able to support my noble friend in a speech of two minutes. It seems perfectly clear to me that something along those lines is a possibility. We hope that the Government will look at the matter, find out the best way of dealing with it and coming back with it. I believe that there is a real demand that the matter of people being imprisoned for not paying fines should be sorted out. The best way of sorting it out is to set the fine in relation to what they can, with moderate discomfort, manage to pay. I hope that the noble Lord will take that suggestion away and bring back something, after careful consideration, which we can support.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that if he does, he will indicate to the Committee what I found difficult to follow. That is how the magistrates' court is conceivably to find out what the disposable income is of a person in such circumstances. Is the court seriously expected to seek a tax return? Is the court simply to make a guess from the look of the offender?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The amendment is quite clear. The words are.
"so far as the disposable income of an offender appears or is known to the court".
In other words, the court does the best it can. That is what we do all through life; there is nothing new about it. It is possible to make a perfectly good assessment of whether an offender, when asked what his income is, is being truthful. I do not think that that system is frightfully good; it certainly is not nonsense.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: What it amounts to is that the court is being asked to make a guess.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Surely it is worth making a guess. Is the noble Lord being so complacent as to say that someone who has a disposable income of £100,000 a year should not pay more than someone who is unemployed? The whole point is that we wish to get at these Arabian princes, if I may recall the example given by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Elwyn-Jones. Let me give another example of a princely income. It was that of

697
Boy George, although he is not Arabian and not a prince. We all know that, although his means are considerable, he was fined a derisory sum of money. Is the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, content with that state of affairs?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, knows perfectly well that he is running over the horizon from the question which I asked. I did not challenge—nor, on this amendment, is it necessary to challenge—the perfectly respectable argument that the better off one is generally, the fairer the imposition of a heavy fine will be. What I asked was how a court was to do that. The noble Lord has not answered that question.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The court uses its best endeavours.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It guesses.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: You may say, "It guesses". It makes an informed guess. I am surprised at the noble Lord. He appears not to wish to help towards what we all wish to achieve. We wish to see that the unemployed man with a small amount of money does not have an impossible fine imposed on him. At the same time, we wish to see that the Arabian princes and the Boy Georges of this world pay whacking great fines. I had hoped to recruit the noble Lord towards that process. I should have asked for his goodwill with some expectation of success. It seems that that is not to be so. I am happy to say that I have the goodwill of the Government, as evidenced in the remarkable words of Mr. Mellor only six months ago in March 1987. That is support for the idea from the Government which the noble Lord supports. However, all we have had is cold water poured on the idea by the noble Lord. That seems to me to be a very great shame.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that it is a very great shame. I am sorry that he tries to saddle me with ideas and views which I do not hold. The point I make concerning his amendment is perfectly simple. Has he put forward a practicable and sensible method of achieving the purposes which he wishes to achieve? What I suggest, with great respect, is that he has not. He has put forward what is almost certainly a grossly unfair, inadequate and somewhat muddled proposal.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: It does not work, saying those things. As I have made absolutely clear, the whole point is to attract a sympathetic answer from the Minister in the same way that a sympathetic answer was attracted in another place from Mr. David Mellor. May I add that Mr. Mellor said that the attractions of the scheme were such that it was well worth looking for a practical means of carrying it out.
The noble Lord knows as well as I do that it is extremely difficult for any amateur draftsman to put into a particular form what is obviously a desirable idea. The nuts and bolts must be done by the Government, with all their resources. The noble Lord knows that as well as I do. Nobody can hope to put
698
forward an idea in such perfect form that it will be accepted by parliamentary counsel without changes. The noble Lord has vast experience in that area. For some reason, by attacking a very minor part of the amendment, he seeks to pour scorn on the whole purpose of it. I am surprised and disappointed. But never mind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have never regarded the noble Lord as an amateur draftsman.
The Earl of Onslow: I hestitate to disagree with my noble friend on the "Front-ish" Bench. However, it seems very odd to me that we cannot find some way of fitting fines to ability to pay. After all, magistrates may remand for psychiatric reports and for other sorts of reports. I think it is rather easier for them to make more than just a refined guess at means. The first argument I ever had with the man who is now my father-in-law occurred when the Vicar of Colwyn Bay was fined £3 for speeding. I thought that that was rather a lot of money on a Welsh vicar's stipend.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Onslow: None of this unattractive nationalism from the Benches opposite! It seemed to me unfair that he should be fined the same amount as some of his better-off relations. My father-in-law, for whom I have the greatest respect, did not agree. I have always thought that it is unfair not to make punishment fit the ability to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is attempting to do that. My noble friend, for whom I have a seriously large amount of respect, is unnecessarily pouring cold water on what is rather a good idea.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We must accept the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, thinks that the idea is impractical, foolish and a waste of time. I do not, and my noble friend who puts forward this amendment does not. I should now like to call on the Government to come in and see whether the Minister will accept my suggestion that this is an important and valuable idea. Will he put the resources of his department into finding out whether he can put forward a sensible scheme?
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said, the idea of unit fine system has been in the air for a number of years. It was first mooted by the Advisory Council on the Penal System as long ago as 1970. Successive governments have held back from pursuing what would be a major disruption of the fining system. Court of Appeal guidance already encourages the courts to adjust fines downwards for poorer offenders. The Home Office handbook, Sentence of the Court, draws the court's attention specifically to the statutory requirement to take the means of the offender into account.
That settles the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and of my noble friend Lord Onslow about the unemployed man compared with the man who is well off. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, also made the point that we

699
want to adjust it for the unemployed man but that instead of having a maximum we actually want to sting the very rich. That is not the position in our system of justice and it is exactly the point I was making on the earlier amendment to which I hope this one will be linked. It makes it clear that small fines may well be justified and should not be regarded as an indication that the offence is trivial, and that custody should not be used simply because the offender lacks the means to pay a fine.
Nevertheless we can see attractions in the idea of attempting to relate fines more directly to means. When this Bill's predecessor was debated in another place my honourable friend the then Minister of State, Mr. Mellor, said that we were anxious to promote discussion of it. I therefore very much welcome the debate we have had today on the noble Lords' amendment.
Many questions of principle arise on the amendment, and I mention some of them. Should some types of offences be excluded from the system, as appears to be the case in Sweden? Should there be any overall maximum for particular offences regardless of income? More basic is the formidable practical problems which will arise, the chief of which is that of assessing a defendant's disposable income.
These are points which were well made by my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton on a previous amendment and indeed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this amendment. At present courts only inquire closely into the offender's income when the offender defaults on payments. The courts would have to do so in every case before the level of the fine is set if fines were to be truly proportionate to means. They would have to rely upon the offender for information. If he was rich he would have every incentive to withhold it. Experience of day fine systems in other countries is by no means conclusive.
The Government's main concern at the moment is that offenders of limited means should not be ordered to pay fines which they cannot afford. To this end we are examining ways of improving assessments and we are in the process of setting up some experimental projects. If they are successful we may be able to move more in the direction of means-related fines for all offenders although, as I have said, there are also problems of principle.
At the moment the practical objections to a rigid day fine system remain very powerful. Even if we could agree on what income should be taken into account—and we could debate for hours how to measure a defendant's income: whether or not we should look at gross or net income; whether or not we should include capital and the interest that accrues thereon—the courts would have to find a method of discovering the income in every case which came before them, which amount to some 1·6 million cases a year. I do not think they could manage, although I realise that many magistrates are in favour of income-related fines.
I realise that this piecemeal approach through further study and experimental projects may not entirely satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Nothing I say today seems to be able to satisfy him.
700
All our experience suggests that it is better to proceed cautiously in matters of this kind. A move to a full day fine system would be a leap in the dark, with enormous administrative consequences for a court system which is already under pressure.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree with me that it is better to concentrate upon finding ways within the present system of broadly ensuring that fines for the less well-off offenders are better related to their means. Nevertheless I hope that I have said enough to assure the Committee and the mover of this amendment that the Government are fully alive to the virtues of a means-related fine, as indeed is my noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and that therefore the noble Lord will not press it this evening.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think that by far the strongest argument of the noble Earl is the question of the administrative difficulties which would arise given the scale of the problem. He then went on to say, as I understand it, that he had a number of experimental projects under way. Given the administrative problems which he set out and which I to some degree acknowledge, what is the character of these experimental projects which relate directly to the amendment which is being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson? If the noble Earl is not in a position to answer that point tonight I should be perfectly content for him to deal with it when he writes to those who have contributed to this discussion between now and the Report stage.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising that point. Perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his answer and I fully accept that there are administrative and practical objections to what I propose. I am very grateful to hear that the Home Office is setting up experimental projects. I should have thought that if we knew what those projects were, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris said, we could have extracted some valuable information from him.
I certainly do not intend to press this amendment today. Before I seek leave to withdraw this amendment I wish to say two things. The noble Lord said that we shall be leaping into the dark. I suggest that it would be leaping into the light of experience in Sweden, Germany and in Austria. Secondly. I should like to assure him that I have no wish—I do not know about others—to sting the rich.
I simply wish that the same incidence of deprivation should fall on the rich as on the poor. A poor man, and certainly someone who is unemployed, would find a £5 or £10 penalty something hard to bear. It would be a trifle for someone in employment. Even a fine of £1,000 would not sting the rich or the very rich. I am not concerned to sting anyone. I wish the effect of the sting on the poor man to be about the same as it is on the rich man.
Having said that, I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Forfeiture—general]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 37, leave out lines 31 to 44.
The noble Lord said: If this amendment finds favour with the Committee, it will have the salutary effect of removing as many as 14 lines from an overburdened statute book, lines which I suggest serve no useful purpose and certainly could do some harm. So an amendment which takes 14 unnecessary lines off the statute book, I suggest to the noble Earl, must really be in the public interest and is even worth detaining us for a few minutes before dinner.
Let me explain the background to this amendment. Under Section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 a court, by or before which a person has been convicted of an offence punishable on indictment with imprisonment for a term of two years or more, if satisfied that any property which was in his possession or under his control at the time of his apprehension—and I underline the words "at the time of his apprehension"—(a) has been used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of any offence or (b) was intended by him to be used for that purpose, could make an order which would deprive him of his rights (if any) in the property.
Decisions of the courts revealed an anomaly in that provision. If the police had lawfully seized the property before—and I underline the word "before"—his apprehension, the court could not make an order under the section. This was because that lawful seizure prevented the property being in his possession or control at the time of his apprehension. So that anomaly, rightly, has to be removed. It is satisfactorily removed by the words in the new subsection (1):
"or which was in his possession or under his control at the time when he was apprehended for the offence or when a summons in respect of it was issued".
So far, so good. Then we have this new and I would suggest completely unnecessary subsection (1A). Subsection (1A) reads:
"In considering whether to make such an order in respect of any property a court shall have regard—(a) to the value of the property".
Pausing there, it is difficult to think of a more banal statutory provision than that. The court does not need to be put under a duty to have regard to that obviously relevant consideration and the same is true of (b) and (c). It is inconceivable that a court would not have regard to those matters in making up its mind. Therefore, courts, when they exercise their discretion to make this order, if this wholly unnecessary provision is allowed to go into the statute book, will have to intone when they are passing sentence, "We had regard to all these considerations (a), (b) and (c)". If they do not remember to say that, they will be at the risk of encouraging appeals. As Section 43 of the 1973 Act at present stands, there is no such list of considerations. I am not aware that that omission has caused any problems whatever in practice. The next part of this provision is, if I may say so, even sillier. It says:
"and a magistrates' court may only make such an order if it is of the opinion that the value of the property does not exceed the maximum fine which it might impose in respect of the offence".
702
No doubt magistrates ought to be cautious about ordering the forfeiture of property which is of greater value than the maximum fine which they could have imposed, but there should be no absolute bar to their doing so.
The draftsman has lost sight of the purpose of this provision. The purpose of Section 43 is not—and I emphasise "not"—to function as a backdoor means of increasing the penalty for an offence. In fact, it is not at all tied to the offence of which the person is convicted or even to an offence by him. The rationale of this section is that where property is held in order to be used for nefarious purposes, or is held unlawfully it may very well be wise for the property to be taken away from the known criminal who holds it lest he or someone else should do harm with it in the future. That is the obvious rationale of the provision.
I see no reason why that prudent line of thought should be in some way invalidated where the property happens to be worth more than £2,000. No doubt it will be exceptional for such valuable property to be used to commit or facilitate a crime but I can think of examples not in the least unlikely such as a motor vehicle or computer equipment, or possibly a highly sophisticated firearm.
Moreover, the noble Earl will appreciate that that is the maximum fine only in the case of offences triable either way. One object, however, of Clause 59 is to extend the forfeiture power to cases where the conviction is of a summary offence for which the maximum fine may be only £50 or £100.
Let us suppose that there is in the offender's possession at the time of his apprehension property worth £150 which it transpires was used by some other person to break into a house the previous night, having been lent to him by the present offender, who had a very good idea what its unlawful use was to be. Why on earth should it not be open to the magistrates to forfeit that property? Of course they must exercise their power judicially but I can see no reason whatever to hedge around the admirably broad sweep of the new Section 43(1) with these artificial and unconsidered restrictions.
That is especially so as it appears to me—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I expressly invite him to do so—that the magistrates will have no jurisdiction to commit to the Crown Court for sentence merely on the ground that there is property which ought to be forfeited but which is more valuable than the magistrates are empowered to deal with.
Finally, it is surely undesirable that magistrates should have to attempt an accurate assessment of the value of property which appears to fall on the borderline of the maximum fine. That type of exercise has, in fact, led to difficulties in criminal damage cases and would lead to difficulties here. Therefore, with respect to the author of this provision I see absolutely nothing for it but much against it, and I commend the simplicity of Clause 59 unencumbered by this new subsection.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Clause 59(1A) is the means by which we are ensuring that in their use of the wider

703
powers of forfeiture provided by this clause, courts will have regard to the means of, and likely effect on, the offender when considering making such an order. This provision is necessary since forfeiture is concerned with a particular item or items of property which may or may not have the indirect effect of a financial penalty, and which may also have other implications for the offender.
The right approach is to require the court generally to have regard to the likely effect on the offender of the making of the order and this is the purpose of subsection (1A). If (1A) were to be removed as the noble Lord has suggested, the offender would be afforded no protection and might as a result suffer a financial or other form of penalty disproportionate to the gravity of this offence. For example, the loss of a vehicle might cause the offender to lose his job. For a person living in a rural area or a person with a handicapped member in the family the loss could result in serious practical (as opposed to financial) hardship for his family.
In other cases the loss of a vehicle might have much less serious consequences. It is surely right that, in considering whether to order forfeiture, the court should consider and have regard to the effects that such an order may have.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has made some telling points; in particular the one about the discrepancies between the Crown Court and the magistrates' court. They are important and I shall have a look at them. Indeed, I should like to consider some of the drafting he mentioned when moving the amendment, because I am sure that he agrees that I am not the person to deal with that at the moment. Perhaps I may discuss it with him between now and another stage to see if we can reach the right conclusion on this particular part of the Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The approach of the noble Earl is characteristically generous. He has, in fact, responded only to the first part of the argument and has not responded to the second part, which deals with the words:
"and a magistrates' court may only make such an order if it is of the opinion that the value of the property does not exceed the maximum fine which it might impose in respect of the offence".
I believe that the arguments which I put forward against that part of the provision are compelling, and perhaps the noble Earl will consider them in transcript together with the other observations I have made. In view of the response of the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we return to the Committee stage at five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
7.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool The Lord Bishop of Liverpool rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. For your Lordships to follow this matter there are two documents that would be of help to you: the Church of England (Legal Aid and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure and the report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Measure.
The purpose of miscellaneous provisions Measures is to effect minor or non-controversial changes in the law. Part I of the Measure consolidates and amends the provisions relating to the ecclesiastical legal aid fund at present contained in three different measures. Part II makes minor amendments to the law on a number of topics. Part III contains formal provisions.
The four clauses of Part I and Schedules 1 and 2 revise and consolidate the existing statutory provisions concerning the Church of England's ecclesiastical legal aid fund. There are at present three Measures and three items of subordinate legislation which currently deal with legal aid: the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 (the 1963 Measure); the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Legal Aid) Rules 1964; the Incumbent (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 (the 1977 Measure); the Vacation of Benefices (Legal Aid) Rules 1978; the Pastoral Measure 1983, replacing the 1968 Measure; and the Compensation of Clergy Rules 1970.
The ecclesiastical legal aid fund was constituted for the first time by the 1963 Measure (Section 59) for the purpose of assisting in the payment of,
"costs of any complainant or accused person in … any legal proceedings … in respect of any offence under the measure".
The legal aid committee was established and,
"charged with the duty of administering the Fund … subject to and in accordance with rules made by the Church Assembly".
The two more recent Measures provide that legal aid may be granted for other proceedings.
The various Measures and regulations do not provide a common approach and practice in the administration of the legal aid fund. Part I of this Measure, together with Schedules 1 and 2, consolidates with amendments the statutory provisions, deals with existing differences and includes further provisions. New rules made under Clause 4 are being prepared and in accordance with Clause 4(4) and (6) they will require the approval of

705
the General Synod and be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. The new rules will provide one set of legal aid rules providing a common procedure for application, grant of legal aid, issue of certificate, control of proceedings and assessment of costs.
Part II comprises nine clauses. Clause 5 amends the Extra-parochial Ministry Measure 1967, under which clergymen are licensed to institutions such as hospitals and prisons, to take account of changes made in the law of marriage for housebound or detained persons by the Marriage Act 1983. The clause has been included in response to a request made by the Home Office during the preparation of the Marriage Act 1983 that consequential amendments to the 1967 Measure be made by Measure rather than in the 1983 Act.
Clause 6 makes provision for the name of a diocesan or suffragan see to be changed. At present there is no machinery for this to happen and the clause gives power to Her Majesty in Council to change the name of a see.
Turning to Clause 7, this deals with the revocation of licences. A bishop by right of his office has at his discretion always been able to revoke a minister's licence to officiate in his diocese and until 1964 a minister had no right of appeal. Section 10 of the Clergy (Ordination and Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1964 gave the minister a right of appeal and incorporated in statute the bishop's power to revoke summarily licences of ministers in his diocese. It was considered desirable to give a similar right of appeal to other persons who are licensed by the bishop, for example, deaconesses and accredited lay workers. Section 10 of the 1964 Measure is being repealed and Clause 7 is an enabling power for the General Synod to make provision by canon as to the revocation of licences of ministers, deaconesses, lay workers and readers.
Members of your Lordships' House might wish to take a look at the comments of the Ecclesiastical Committee on Clause 7. In the second paragraph the committee says:
"The relevant canon approved by the General Synod would give ministers the same right of appeal as they presently enjoy and the Ecclesiastical Committee accept the evidence given on behalf of the General Synod that it would he unrealistic to suppose that the power in Clause 7 would in future be used in such a way as to remove or cut down the right of appeal".
Clause 8 is also an enabling power to make provision by canon as to the appointment and dismissal of organists and choirmasters. The right of appointment to the office of organist belongs to the incumbent but the parochial church council is responsible for the payment of his remuneration. The right of the incumbent to appoint and dismiss an organist is being retained but provision is to be made by canon for the agreement of the parochial church council generally to be obtained first before an organist is appointed or dismissed.
Clauses 9 to 12 deal with minor amendments or improvements to various statutes made at the request of the Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board.
Clause 13 amends the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956 so that money given at Holy
706
Communion should be disposed of at the discretion of the parochial church council and not the churchwardens as currently directed by the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer. This provision merely recognises the regular practice of the majority of parish churches.
The Home Office has been fully consulted on the Measure throughout its progress through the General Synod, and the General Register Office and the Department of the Environment has also been consulted on Clauses 5 and 10 respectively.
The Measure was given general approval by the General Synod at its July 1984 Group of Sessions. The Revision Committee amended the Measure extensively and divided it into three parts. The draft legislation was returned for revision in full Synod in July 1985 and was considered for final approval in February 1986 at which stage the voting was as follows: House of Bishops, ayes 18, noes 0; House of Clergy, ayes 122, noes 0; House of Laity, ayes 112, noes 0. The Ecclesiastical Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient and, in its report (HL 140), it comments in particular on Clauses 7, 8 and 13.
I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I shall be very quick. Let me make one or two remarks about the provisions of the Measure referred to by the right reverend Prelate that Communion alms shall be disposed of by the parochial church council rather than by the incumbent and churchwardens in keeping with the old rubric of the Prayer Book that such alms shall be distributed to the poor. Anyone upholding the cause of the Prayer Book should be careful not to go too far in taking up the position of a fundamentalist. It has to be seen that some rubrics of the Prayer Book over the years have become unworkable and here in particular we need to remember that parish Communion has become more popular than matins and so the collection at the Communion service may be the biggest, indeed the only, collection.
Nevertheless, having said that, it is very disappointing that the Measure fails to enjoin on the parochial church council any duty to remember the poor. It is easy to envisage what may happen when Communion alms are placed at the disposal of the parochial church council. They would have to he paid into the parochial church council's accounts. The parochial church council's treasurer would aggregate this cash with other funds of the parish to pay for gas, electricity, repairing the roof and so on, and the aggregated fund would be subject to a diocesan levy; that is to say, the payment of a quota to be used in part to support the synodical machine and the bureaucracy of the Church of England.
We are very familiar with arguments that the Church of England has misunderstood its mission in secularising Christianity by imposing answers to economic problems for which there is no Christian or

707
specifically Anglican solution. It would be inappropriate at this moment to examine whether this trend in the Church of England is right or reflected in the Archbishop's Commission on Urban Priority Areas. However, let me conclude by observing that it is odd for the Church of England on the one hand to have the Archbishop's Commission on Urban Priority Areas and on the other this Measure completely removing the statutory obligation on the parish to do something about those less fortunate than themselves. For reasons of logic alone the Church of England cannot look both ways.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for explaining so clearly the content of this Measure and what differences there are between what is proposed here this evening and what has happened in the past. We are also grateful to him for indicating in a very clear and firm manner that the Church of England Synod voted decisively in favour of this measure. Indeed the voting figures sounded somewhat like Politburo voting figures in the Soviet Union!
I welcome this Measure. I have participated in some of the discussions in the Ecclesiastical Committee on some of the points. I should, however, like to ask the right reverend Prelate one or two rather minor questions, but they are really questions of clarification rather than challenge.
In Clause 1(2) of the Measure we see,
"After every ordinary election to the General Synod the Standing Committee of the General Synod shall appoint a commission".
I should he grateful if the right reverend Prelate will tell us how the members of that commission are selected. Is this something which is generally open to members of the Synod, other people, practising members, communicants in the Church of England? What is the basis for that selection? It also carries through into Clause 1(4) where it specifies,
"The members of the … Commission shall be entitled to hold office until their successors, who may be the same persons, come into office".
If we are dealing with legal aid, which is a matter of social concern, I am sure the right reverend Prelate recognises that we on this side of the House would like to feel that there is some measure of openness about how these people are appointed and that the less well off in the community would be represented in some manner on this Commission. Without wishing to force the issue, I should be grateful if the right reverend Prelate could help us on that point.
In Clause 2(4) we read:
"Before deciding whether to grant any legal aid under this section … the Commission shall consider the financial resources of the applicant (including the financial resources of the wife or husband of the applicant), and legal aid shall not be granted if it appears to the Commission that the applicant could afford to proceed without legal aid".
Again I return to the matter of the commission. I hope that the standing committee of the Synod in appointing members of the commission will bear in mind that these applications have to be considered on a very compassionate basis and it would be wrong for
708
the Church of England to appear to be hard-faced or bureaucratic in its approach.
I next turn to the rules that may be made under Clause 4. I accept entirely what the right reverend Prelate says: rules made under subsection (1) would be statutory instruments which are subject to the negative procedure. Nevertheless—noble Lords on the Front Bench will know that I make this point frequently—in all areas where we pass Measures and Bills which allow negative procedure instruments, we like to know a little more about the general principles on which these powers will be available and will be used. I note that under Clause 4(3),
"Any rules made under subsection 1(1) above may make different provision in relation to different proceedings".
I shall be most grateful if the right reverend Prelate will give us some indication—I am not asking for a long speech, a sermon or anything else—on how the commission and the Synod approach these matters of some sensitivity.
Turning now to "Miscellaneous Provisions"; under this part on Clause 7, to which the Ecclesiastical Committee drew the attention of the House, I do not think I have any particular comment to make. I was present at the Ecclesiastical Committee when it discussed this matter. It was discussed fully in the Ecclesiastical Committee and a number of members of that committee made certain comments and had certain objections. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, it is essential to ensure that where we have deaconesses (and perhaps in the future deacons without any differentiation of sex), lay workers and readers that there should be a proper right of appeal if their licences are revoked. This caused a great deal of difficulty in the Ecclesiastical Committee. Clause 8 of the Measure, concerning the appointment of organists and choirmasters, raised the question that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, raised on another matter to which I shall come shortly—that of the responsibility of the incumbent against the responsibility of the parochial church council.
I believe that the Measure before us is quite properly and correctly drafted and conveys the right emphasis. I wonder—somewhat frivolously perhaps—about the expression,
"persons to act as organists and choir masters (by whatever name called)".
In my time I have called organists and choirmasters a number of names, but I am not sure what other names there might be available. I note that in passing as a curious act of draftsmanship.
The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, mentioned Clause 13 of the Measure. I have certain sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. The rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer are and have a certain hallowed authority, if I may put it like that. At our peril we move away from the tradition of the Church of England as enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer. I was present at the discussion that took place in the Ecclesiastical Committee and I am inclined to take a somewhat different view from the noble Lord, although I recognise that he has a serious point.
In summary I feel that this is a Measure that the right reverend Prelate is correct to commend to your

709
Lordships' House. We on this side of the Chamber have no great matter of principle. But we should be grateful if when he responds the right reverend Prelate can reply to some of the points I have made.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful for the short debate we have had. I saw the extreme nervousness of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at the thought of a sermon coming on. I shall spare noble Lords that.
I respond first to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, made. He recognises what is the point of the change from the time when that rubric was written, when the main congregations, and therefore the main collections of the church, were at an eleven o'clock or a 6.30 service. There was an 8 a.m. celebration and it was from that 8 a.m. celebration that those alms were to be given to the poor.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I should want to see the Church much more deeply committed than it has ever been to remembering the poor. There is no conceivable way in which this change could be a turn away from that. It provides that the parochial church council is the body responsible for all the giving of the people of God in the parish. The PCC is a charity, and all its moneys must be used for charitable purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised various points. The standing committee of the General Synod is the body which arranges the business of the synod. Its election is wide and open.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate. The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, made an interesting point, and I do not think that the right reverend Prelate has answered it. The point was that the parochial church council is now free to use that money, if this Measure passes, not for the poor; it could go to pay the electricity bill and do the roof. Must it earmark that money for local churches to give to the poor or to individuals, or can it pay the electricity bill? The PCCs have troubles with electricity bills like everyone else. I can see the money going quickly into paying church bills rather than to the relief of the poor.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, there is no doubt that in the majority of parishes, since long before I was born, all the offerings have been put together and used by the PCCs. Yes, PCCs have what was called "alms" and "dues". It is important for them to be called to face both those responsibilities. I speak about my own diocese and many others. We have now moved to assessment of stipends arid quotas on the basis of potential and not merely on how much comes in; so whether a parish is, so to speak, keeping some of the money in a separate pocket would no longer arise with us.
I do not believe we shall take seriously our commitment to the poor merely by trying to keep the money from one pocket for them. The charge and the challenge to the Church, to which I am deeply committed, as, thank God, is the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the lead that he has given us, to which the noble Lord referred, is that this should be a mainline part of our
710
funding. There has been some substantial change in that direction since the commission reported.
The standing committee is elected in the most open possible way with a great deal of interest by the General Synod. Members of the commission shall be members of the Church of England—usually some are lawyers who know about legal aid, and some are clergy—to represent their peers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, would it not be right for the Church to have representatives of the laity on this commission?
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, the lawyers would be. I do not think that we want to say that that is exclusive. We hear the point that has been made and will take that back with us. On Clause 2(4), we should want to take note and consider that on a compassionate basis. My experience is that that has been done when such matters occasionally have to be proceeded with.
The rules made under Clause 4 will take account of a person's means and they will of course come to Parliament. The rules are concerned with general principles. The proceedings will differ in a case under the Vacation of Benefices Measure from a case under the Pastoral Measure. With this measure we are attempting to provide legal aid widely so that it is available in every appropriate case. It is an attempt to leave that flexibility for the future.
My advice is that the "choirmaster" includes choirmistress and choirtrainers. The noble Lord was interested in the subject of women deacons. They are already clergypersons and were within the measure as it was. This is to extend the measure to accredited lay workers and to readers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations 1987
7.45 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th April, be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1986–87.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations, made under the European Communities Act 1972, have as their sole purpose to implement the Community's third and sixth company law directives in Great Britain. Rules similar to these regulations will be made later this year to implement the directives in Northern Ireland.
Neither the directives nor these regulations contain any provisions affecting competition policy. The third directive, adopted in 1978, deals with the operation under which two or more public limited companies (plcs) are merged by the transfer of all the assets and liabilities of one or more plcs to another plc or to a new company. In exchange, the shareholders of the transferring companies receive shares in the recipient company. The directive does not deal with takeovers where all that happens is that

711
one company acquires the shares in another company. The sixth directive, adopted in 1982, deals with the reverse process to a merger; namely, where a plc is divided and all its assets and liabilities are transferred to two or more plcs or to new companies formed for the purpose of the operation in exchange for the allocation to the shareholders of the plc being divided of shares in the recipient companies. The philosophy underlying these directives is to provide broadly equivalent safeguards in member states for members and creditors of public limited companies which are a party to such operations.
I should explain to your Lordships that the types of operation covered by both directive occur very infrequently in this country. Mergers of the type covered by the third directive are far less common than takeovers. Moreover, so far there has been no division of a public limited company in this country of the kind dealt with in the sixth directive. Therefore, the impact of these regulations on the commercial life of this country is very limited.
The deadline for implementing the third directive was originally set as October 1981. However, because work was still proceeding on the very closely related sixth directive, member states were not in practice held to the original deadline for implementing the third directive and it was eventually agreed that member states would be permitted to implement the third and sixth directives together by the date described for the latter, that is 1st January 1986. Unfortunately because of discussions arising from the consultations we undertook in the autumn of 1985 and last year (including with the Commission) we have overrun the deadline. However, I understand several other member states have yet to implement either directive so we are by no means the last to do so.
Both directives contain detailed provisions about the information which shareholders are to receive and about the protection for creditors of the plcs involved in these operations, in particular: first, the drawing up by the directors of all the plcs involved of written draft terms of division or merger as the case may be, including descriptions of the assets and liabilities to he transferred, their allocation amongst the recipient companies and the criteria for the allocation of shares in the recipient companies among the shareholders of the transferor companies; secondly, publication of the draft terms of a merger or division at least one month before they are to be considered by a general meeting of each of the plcs involved; thirdly, a report by the directors of each company involved, explaining the draft terms of the merger or division; fourthly, a report by an independent expert on the draft terms of the merger or division; fifthly, approval by the general meeting of each plc involved; and, lastly, the laws of member states must provide for an adequate system of protection of the interests of creditors of the merging or dividing companies whose claims antedate the publication of the draft terms of merger or division.
The current law in this country in these matters is set out in Sections 425 to 427 of the Companies Act 1985 dealing with arrangements and reconstructions. The procedures which have in practice been followed
712
in this country by companies seeking to effect a merger of the type described in the Third Directive have had some similarities to those prescribed in these regulations, although they have not previously been set out in statute.
Your Lordships may recall that the Sixth Directive gave rise to some discussion in the period 1980–1982 when it was being negotiated. As originally drafted, it was criticised as unnecessary and, moreover, more rigid and therefore less flexible in its approach than the existing provisions of the Companies Act. Following consultations with representative organisations in this country the United Kingdom negotiating team drew attention in Brussels to the criticisms that were made of the directive. A majority of member states and of the Commission nevertheless remained firm in their view that it was right that the Community should adopt a directive to deal with divisions, but in these negotiations changes were made to the original proposal which will allow us to retain elements of the United Kingdom system of judicial supervision of mergers and divisions. I should record that the views on the proposed Sixth Directive put forward by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities and by the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation were especially valuable to us in the course of the negotiations.
The general approach of the regulations is to make no change to Sections 425 to 427 of the Companies Act 1985. However, they enact a new Section 427A and Schedule 15A and they provide that, where there is a merger or division of the kind dealt with in the directive, that operation will be subject to the modifications and additional provisions there set out. Sections 425 to 427 will continue to apply unamended to other operations. The new provisions will cover a merger of two or more pies even if there are other companies involved which are private. The directives do not, however, apply to the private companies themselves and neither will these regulations. On divisions, the company being divided must be a plc and the transferee companies must be either a plc or a new company (whether or not a public company) formed for the purpose of the division.
It has been argued that the directives should also be applied to mergers and divisions where private companies and only one public limited company are involved. We believe however that the existing provisions of the Companies Act already cater adequately for the interests of those concerned with such companies. Therefore, the approach we have adopted goes no further than we think we have to go in order to meet our Community obligations. On this basis the shareholders of pies would not be deprived of the protection afforded to them by the directive even in those situations where a merger includes private as well as two public companies.
As your Lordships may know, certain mergers or divisions involving the transfer of the business of a life insurance company cannot be carried out under Sections 425 to 427 of the Companies Act 1985, but must be undertaken in accordance with special provisions of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Further regulations will be presented shortly to deal with our obligations under these directives in respect

713
of those insurance companies. I ask your Lordships to approve these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th April, be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1986–87.]—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for explaining the provisions contained in this draft statutory instrument. I shall try to focus on some of the major issues first and then ask the noble Lord if he would reply to a series of what I shall call clarificatory questions that I have.
I hope I misheard the noble Lord when he seemed to say that the provisions of schemes of arrangement and the amendments proposed to the Companies Act under this draft order did not form—I cannot remember the expression—an important part of our commercial life. Schemes of arrangement, as I know them, and indeed going back to the old Companies Act 1948, have formed a very important part of our commercial life.
I agree that divisions have not so far formed a part of our commercial life simply because it is rather difficult to achieve. but schemes of arrangement—the old Section 206, if my memory serves me right, or Section 209—were a very important part, and that carried through into the sections of the consolidated Act of 1985 to which the noble Lord referred: Sections 425 to 427. Anything that affects ability to enter into schemes of arrangement as we have known them in the past must be of some concern to our commercial life.
My second general point is that I appreciate that under the European Communities Act 1972—specifically under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2—the wires for this draft order is clearly established. Nevertheless I find it curious that I can hold up in my hand a Companies Act which was consolidated in 1985 and is as thick—and I demonstrate to your Lordships—as that, and that we have amendments to this Companies Act produced by orders under a different piece of legislation which properly, if there were no European Communities Act, because of the size and complexity of this order, would form a new Companies Bill. It is difficult for practitioners to operate with an Act even as complicated as the Companies Act 1985 if this Act is going to be amended on a regular basis under orders made under a different Act.
This leads me to my third point. What will the effect in practice be on the commercial and financial life of our country if this draft order goes through in its present form? The draft order deals, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, with mergers and divisions. I do not intend to spend any time at all discussing the questions of divisions, for the reasons that I have already mentioned. As the noble Lord pointed out, these are relatively unimportant, although I recognised that there is a directive which refers particularly to them and we have to assent to it.
The problem that I see with this order in its draft form is that it introduces a number of elements into mergers by way of what I shall continue, I am afraid,
714
to call schemes of arrangement, which we are not used to and which are not customary, and indeed which create certain problems for the practitioners in the market who now perform certain roles which are changed by this order.
My main point under this heading is the question of the expert's report. Up to now, as your Lordships will know, when there is a merger, be it a scheme of arrangement or anything else, it is quite normal to have a circular sent to shareholders which contains a recommendation from a merchant bank, or two merchant banks, or sometimes three merchant banks. Indeed investors rely very much on the recommendations made by those merchant banks.
We are now told in this order that if there is a scheme of arrangement the merchant banking opinion—whatever that may be of course is not mentioned in the order—does not matter at all; that what matters is the thing called the expert's report. The expert is none other than somebody who is qualified to be an auditor and is therefore an accountant. So we shall have what I regard as an absurd situation.
Current practice and the shareholders will demand that merchant bank X, which is advising company Y. and merchant bank A, which is advising company B, both make recommendations to the effect that having studied all the facts of the case, they believe they can recommend that the merger go ahead as a scheme. Then an expert's report by an independent accountant has to be produced for the court. That report will state, "We think that merchant bank A or merchant bank B may be wrong". It may be right or wrong, but there is no point in the expert simply endorsing the statement of the merchant bank. Otherwise, why have an expert's report in the first place?
If the expert, who is an accountant, disagrees with the recommendation of the merchant bank, the accountant in question (whoever he or she may be) cannot expect a great deal of business from the merchant banks with which he disagrees on a recommendation for a merger of this nature. I am afraid that those are the commercial facts of life and we must attend to them.
The expert's report accompanies the directors' report. The directors' report, as set out in the proposed Schedule 15A, will consist of a number of statements including one "specifying any special valuation difficulties". I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, sitting on the Cross-Benches because he and I have engaged in many transactions in which there have been valuation difficulties. At the end of the day if there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, one comes to some sort of compromise. I would argue that almost every deal has valuation difficulties in principle and that one cannot specify any particular item. The directors would be quite wrong to specify any particular item which has given rise to special valuation difficulties. Anybody who has any experience of such deals knows that one takes the whole package and says, "I'll trade you my head office, and you trade me your distribution network". That is how one reaches a global price or a global exchange of shares and a global ratio on which one can deal.

715
The problem is compounded when one reads that the expert has to comment on what the directors have specified as valuation difficulties. He has to describe them and state whether in his opinion the share exchange ratio is reasonable. That is exactly what merchant banks do at the moment.
Should it be the case that Price Waterhouse, Coopers and Lybrand or Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and so on—to take names at random—have to decide, comment and opine on whether a merchant bank recommended merger or scheme is reasonable, I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord that it will upset the balance of advisory forces that are at present in operation in the City of London.
There are some points of particular interest on which I ask for clarification. In the order as drafted, new Section 427A specifies that this clause only bites if the consideration is to be shares. It may be with or without any cash payment but the essence of it is that there should be shares. In normal commercial parlance the word "shares" covers a multitude of things. For instance, does the clause bite if the consideration is cash plus a few preferred shares—not ordinary shares but preferred shares? Does it bite if the consideration is cash plus one or two of the non-special something or other convertible shares. Or does it bite where there is a convertible debenture—a debenture convertible into shares? Does it bite if there are parts of the consideration which are in shares of companies other than the transferer or transferee company. One can have exchangeable debentures which one can exchange into the shares of a subsidiary, and that can be part of the consideration. I believe that this use of the word "shares" in new Section 427A needs a certain amount of clarification.
Turning to the schedule itself, I understand that the draft terms of the merger have to be presented to the court and unless those terms are presented the court cannot sanction the compromise or arrangement. Does that mean that the ratio at which shares are exchanged is frozen until the court decides one way or the other? Let us suppose that I do a deal with the noble Lord, Lord Kissin, and I say to him, "I have a company and you have a company. We are both plcs. We will have a five-for-three exchange". Does that mean that the five-for-three ratio is for ever fixed because we have declared it in our draft terms to the court, or can we go back to the court and say, "In the light of market developments since we undertook this particular transaction, although we should like to continue with it, the ratio should now be four for three"—or five for seven, or whatever it may be? So that is the first point on which I should like clarification.
Secondly, the expert's report to which I referred on the matter of principle raises the question of who can be an expert. I refer to paragraph 5(3) of the draft order. From that, I think it is fairly clear that the expert has to be an accountant; an accountant is the only person who is qualified to be an auditor. In this country we are considering another directive which concerns the regulation of the accounting profession. A number of people will be allowed to act as auditors who are not at present perhaps members of
716
partnerships or of a recognised institute. What happens to the order if the regulations concerning who is allowed to be an auditor change as a result of any government measures?
Another question I should like to put to the noble Lord is: what are the civil liabilities of the expert if he comes to the conclusion that something is reasonable under paragraph 5(7)(d) and it turns out that for one reason or another he is wrong'? What recourse is there for shareholders? Does he have an official status? Does he have a statutory status? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would offer some comment on that point.
I find it difficult to go through these regulations, which effectively are Bills in short form, during the dinner break when perforce there is only a short period of time available. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I mean it when I say that this is a very important measure, in my view affecting a number of transactions, schemes or arrangements which have great importance in our commercial life. That is why I believe that these regulations should be taken very seriously and I should be grateful for the noble Lord's comments on my remarks.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, these directives were made under Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty and as such were subject to the majority voting procedures of that treaty. Since in this country we had had relatively few mergers of the kind covered by these regulations and no divisions involving plcs it was not possible to argue during the negotiations on either directive with any credibility that any vital national interests were at stake in these matters.
We should, moreover, not forget that these directives were seen by a majority of member states as a significant part of the Community's,
"General programme for the Abolition of Restrictions on Freedom of Establishment",
promulgated in 1962 which states that,
"the safeguards required by Member States of companies and firms for the protection of the interests of members and others should, to the extent necessary and with a view to making such safeguards equivalent, be co-ordinated".
Our hope is that the member states and the Commission will in return, in the light of our acceptance of these directives, make progress towards a true common market in the field of services, including insurance and the provision of professional services. I am hopeful that our approach in this matter will assist major advances in the latter fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me a number of questions, and he expressed some surprise that I stated that there had been very few schemes of arrangement that would come under the directives that we are discussing now. We would not suggest that schemes of arrangement are not important, but those covered by the regulations are a very small proportion of such arrangements and this kind of arrangement has occurred relatively infrequently.
On the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about the vires of the new Companies Bill, it was because the regulations are amending primary legislation that we have adopted the affirmative procedure. The department of course consulted

717
practitioners and took account of their comments on the drafting.
As regards the position of the merchant banks and members of the Issuing Houses Association, which I think is broadly the same thing, I should like to look carefully at what the noble Lord said and reply to him. I have an answer here, but it is rather long and I am not sure whether it covers the exact point that he made. I should like to read what he has said and perhaps he will agree that I may write to him on this subject as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also asked how the regulations bite and what kinds of share are involved. We certainly consider that they bite whether or not the shares are preference shares, but not to a formal instrument such as a debenture—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on a clarifying point, not to a convertible debenture?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, again I think that I had better look at that, because I suspect that that form of instrument starts off as one thing and becomes another on conversion. Again, I think I should look at that and come back to the noble Lord in writing.
On the noble Lord's point about whether the ratio of shares is frozen or can be altered subsequent to submission to the court because of market forces changing the relationship between the two share values or for some other reason, the courts will need to work out a procedure to he applied in such cases. I think they would regard that as perhaps being something that is necessary in the light of experience, because no doubt there will be instances when these things happen in real life.
I hope the House will agree that we have achieved a workable result which gives fair weight to the United Kingdom's concerns and experience while not impeding the achievement of wider Community objectives. If there is any other point which the noble Lord made and which I have not fully answered, I shall come back to him in writing after reading what he has said, because I understand that time is rather short.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 61 [Confiscation orders]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 39, line 9, leave out ("other than a drug trafficking offence") and insert ("to which this Part of this Act applies").
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting amendment. Part V of the Bill creates powers to confiscate the proceeds of certain serious and highly profitable offences, subject to a lower limit of £10,000. The offences in question are the whole range of indictable offences, plus a small number of highly profitable summary offences listed in Schedule 3.
718
Drug trafficking offences are not included, because confiscation powers in the case of those offences are contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
The offences to which Part V of the Bill applies are defined accordingly in Clause 61(9)(c). However, Clause 61(2)(a) at present gives the Crown Court power to confiscate on convicting someone for,
"any offence other than a drug trafficking offence".
Very occasionally, the Crown Court may convict someone of a summary offence where that offence is joined to an indictable offence in the same proceedings. It is not the intention that the Crown Court should have power to confiscate on conviction for that kind of offence, unless it is one of the few summary offences listed in Schedule 3. Therefore, to avoid any possibility of confusion, we propose to amend Clause 61(2)(a) so that it simply refers to an offence to which this Part of the Bill applies, thus becoming linked to the definition in Clause 61(9). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 31:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule:

QUESTIONS AS TO SENTENCING—SUPPLEMENTARY
1. Subject to rules of court made under section 53(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) above shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in Part IIIA of this Act (including references in this Schedule) shall he construed as references to that division.
2. Notice of an application for leave to refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) above shall be given within 28 days from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed.
3. The power to grant leave may be exercised by a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, but if a single judge refuses an application, the Attorney General shall he entitled to have it determined by the Court of Appeal.
4. If the registrar of criminal appeals is given notice of a reference or application to the Court of Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) above, he shall—

(a) take all necessary steps for obtaining a hearing of the reference or application; and

(b) obtain and lay before the Court in proper form all documents, exhibits and other things which appear necessary for the proper determination of the reference or application.

5. Rules of court may enable a person to whose sentencing such a reference or application relates to obtain from the registrar any documents or things, including copies or reproductions of documents, required for the reference or application and may authorise the registrar to make charges for them in accordance with scales and rates fixed from time to time by the Treasury.
6. An application to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer a case to the House of Lords under section (Questions as to sentencing) (4) above shall he made within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the Court of Appeal conclude their review of the case; and an application to the House of Lords for leave shall be made within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the Court of Appeal conclude their review or refuse leave to refer the case to the House of Lords.
7. The time during which a person whose case has been referred for review under section (Questions as to sentencing) above is in custody pending its review and pending any reference to the House of Lords under subsection (4) of that section shall be reckoned as part of the term of any sentence to which he is for the time being subject.
8. Except as provided by paragraphs 9 and 10 below, a person whose sentencing is the subject of a reference to the Court of

719
Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) above shall be entitled to be present, if he wishes it, on the hearing of the reference, although he may be in custody.
9. A person in custody shall not be entitled to be present:

(a) on an application by the Attorney General for leave to refer a case; or

(b) on any proceedings preliminary or incidental to a reference;

unless the Court of Appeal give him leave to be present.
10. The power of the Court of Appeal to pass sentence on a person may be exercised although he is not present.
11. A person whose sentencing is the subject of a reference to the House of Lords under section (Questions as to sentencing) (4) above and who is detained pending the hearing of that reference shall not be entitled to be present on the hearing of the reference or of any proceeding preliminary or incidental thereto except where an order of the House authorises him to be present or where the House or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, give him leave to be present.
12. The term of any sentence passed by the Court of Appeal or House of Lords under section (Questions as to sentencing) above shall, unless they otherwise direct, begin to run from the time when it would have begun to run if passed in the proceeding in relation to which the reference was made.
13. Where on a reference to the Court of Appeal under section (Questions as to sentencing) above or a reference to the House of Lords under subsection (4) of that section the person whose sentencing is the subject of the reference appears by counsel for the purpose of presenting any argument to the court or the House, he shall be entitled to his costs, that is to say to the payment out of central funds of such funds as are reasonably sufficient to compensate him for expenses properly incurred by him for the purpose of being represented on the reference; and any amount recoverable under this paragraph shall be ascertained, as soon as practicable, by the registrar of criminal appeals or, as the case may be, such offer as may be prescribed by order of the House of Lords.").
The noble Earl said: I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, wishes to say a few words upon this amendment, although it has already been spoken to with Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Lord Wigoder: I am grateful to the noble Earl. This is a consequential amendment. It is the amendment which sets up the machinery by which there is to be implemented the clause passed by the Committee against my advice, giving the prosecution the right of appeal against lenient or over-lenient sentences.
In the course of that very long debate, no reference was made to the actual machinery set out in Amendment No. 31 and I simply want to make one comment on this proposed machinery with a genuine desire to be helpful. It concerns the proposal that where appeals are thus made there should be a preliminary sieve, before the case goes to the full Court of Appeal, of a single judge giving leave for that purpose. I want to query whether that is in fact necessary or desirable.
I can understand the present practice whereby, if an appellant is appealing against a sentence which he alleges is too severe, the single judge is used as a sieve, because many such appeals are totally unmeritorious, frivolous and without foundation and the use of the single judge allows them to be eliminated. I could understand using a single judge similarly, if the proposal now was that the prosecution might have a general right of appeal on the grounds of an over-lenient sentence, because there might be some prosecuting counsel, or prosecuting authorities, who might use that power, or seek to use it, in a somewhat oppressive way, and it would be helpful if the single
720
judge were there to sieve those appeals out before they reach the full court.
We decided that the Attorney-General would be responsible for bringing such appeals. He is a person of manifest independence, as we all know. The Government said that the number of appeals would be somewhere in the region of a dozen a year. There will therefore obviously be the cases that appear to the Attorney-General to be the most flagant apparently over-lenient sentences. I cannot believe that using a single judge as a sieve in those circumstances is in any way necessary.
The proceedings before the single judge as I understand it will be ex parte: the defendant will not be entitled to be heard. The single judge will be looking at the documents. I find it inconceivable that the single judge in those circumstances could differ from the Attorney-General on a view that here was a matter worth being considered by the full Court of Appeal.
Using a single judge in the way that is now proposed for appeals by the Attorney-General I think has two disadvantages. First, it will involve additional work for the single judge, who is already heavily occupied. Secondly, it is an extra stage in the proceedings that could usefully be dispensed with because it would then enable the full appeal to come on more quickly. I think that, for any defendant who may have the misfortune of finding himself sentenced on a second occasion and perhaps more severely, the quicker that is done, the nearer it is to the trial, the better.
I ask only that the Government look at whether it is essential to retain the use of the single judge in this machinery set out in Amendment No. 31. It might be—it is not for me advise the Government what to do—that they will think it appropriate to have a word with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who presides over the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. I suspect that, if the Government were good enough to do that they might then be able to come back at the next stage of the Bill with some amendments that were mutually acceptable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I remind the Committee that we have not yet had a Motion. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, should move Amendment No. 31 before we go any further.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Wigoder has just said. Like him, I much regret the decision taken by the Committee earlier this week. Given the fact that that decision has been taken, I do not begin to understand the argument for the single judge. As my noble friend has pointed out, it will undoubtedly lead to additional work for a hard-pressed judge in any event. I do not believe that it will do other than add to the delay for a defendant who would know that the Attorney-General was asking for his case to go to the Court of Appeal. I think that the case, if it is authorised as it has to be by the Attorney-General,

721
should sensibly go direct to the Court of Appeal. I believe that the case for this is made out. No doubt there is some belief that this is in some way a more fair-minded approach. As I have indicated, I hope that the Government will look at this matter between now and Report.
The Earl of Arran: I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Harris of Greenwich. In the circumstances, I think that they would not expect me to comment upon this myself; but I shall of course refer it to my noble friend Lord Caithness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Statements, etc. relevant to making confiscation orders]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 41, line 27, leave out ("account") and insert ("consideration").
The noble Lord said: With this it would be appropriate to take Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83. These are drafting amendments. The first two change the expression "taken into account" in Clause 63 to "taken into consideration", which is the expression used elsewhere in this Part of the Bill. The last two amendments remove the redundant words "obtained or" in two places in Clause 64(8). Subsection (8) concerns validation of gifts received by third parties. The expression "obtained" relates to property obtained from an offence and belongs in earlier subsections. It should, therefore, be deleted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 41, line 32, leave out ("taken into account") and insert ("so taken into consideration").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Definition of principal terms used]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("obtained or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 44, line 2, leave out ("obtained or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 and 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 47, line 4, at end insert—
("(4A) An application for a restraint order shall:

(a) State particulars of the offence or offences with which the defendant is charged

722

(b) Give particulars of the allegations made against the defendant and fairly state the points made against them by the defendant

(c) Give grounds for belief that:

(i) the defendant has benefited from the offence or offences

(ii) the value of his proceeds of the offence or. as the case may be, the aggregate value of his proceeds of the offences, and the amount that might be realised, are at least £10,000

(iii) there is a risk that dealings in the defendant's realisable property may defeat the making or enforcement of a confiscation order,

(d) Where the realisable property is held by a specified person not being the defendant give particulars of the circumstances on which it is so held.

(e) Give an undertaking to pay to the specified person compensation assessed in accordance with section 79(3) of this Act in the circumstances specified in section 79(1) of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 61 provides for orders to confiscate property representing the benefit obtained from the commission of an offence. An order of that kind, that is, an order to confiscate property, must await a conviction. It is evidently a necessary provision in order to prevent a defendant who expects with good reason that he will be convicted from putting such property out of reach of the authorities in the meantime. Thus the explanation for Clauses 66 to 69 is that they provide for restraint orders and charging orders which look to an earlier stage in the proceedings so that that is not their sole function. Such orders may even be made before proceedings are instituted at all. Put at its shortest, their effect is to freeze the property in question.
Members of the Committee will immediately see that that is a sweeping and strong order to make at a time when no one has been found guilty of anything; but we make no complaint about that. Similar orders in recent years have become well known to the civil law. They are called Mareva injunctions after the case in which that order was first made.
I am a little disappointed to observe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has not remained in his seat at this hour of the night. He did not, I think, invent the Mareva injunction. So shortly afterwards someone did. He rationalised it and popularised it, as both activities were his wont. My purpose in bringing these amendments forward in the context of this Bill is to introduce into the criminal law safeguards for individuals not yet found guilty. no less than the safeguards which today apply in ordinary civil or commercial litigation.
Like the orders now envisaged by the Bill and characteristically and for obvious reasons applied for ex parte (that is, the person seeking the orders goes along to the court without telling the other side), that is exactly what happens in relation to Clause 61 orders. By the time the owner of the property finds out about it, the application under Clause 61 having been made ex parte, his property is frozen and he cannot lawfully deal with it except by going to the court to get the order discharged or varied.
Because of this one-sided application the civil courts have insisted that the party who is applying for the order must show strong grounds for it to be made and must be absolutely frank with the court. In a recent case in 1985 the present Master of the Rolls said that the Mareva injunction in the civil law was a draconian remedy. He went so far as to describe it as

723
a nuclear weapon of the law. It is indeed a strong order but I do not think it is quite as strong as that. That concern to protect the defendant who is subject to a Mareva order in the civil law, made as it were quite properly behind his back, is to be contrasted with the free and easy approach of the Bill. I could have said, uncharitably, that the Government might have been expected to show a little more respect for rights of property unless perhaps it is the presumption of innocence for which its affection is limited.
All that is really needed to get the order is for the prosecutor to satisfy the court that a confiscation order may be made in the proceedings. The purpose of these amendments is simply to adopt the matters that must be dealt with by a plaintiff in civil litigation seeking a Mareva injunction. In fact they were laid down by the Court of Appeal in 1979. The court then hoped and anticipated that the requirements would in no way reduce the efficacy of the remedy. Experience has shown that they have not.
The objective is to save the court to which application is made from having to decide the point in a state of ignorance and the aim is to do justice to defendants, potential defendants and third parties, all of whom I would emphasise are as yet presumed to be innocent.
I am sure that the noble Earl would agree that there is no reason for the protection to be any less in criminal proceedings than it is in civil proceedings. Equally an undertaking to pay compensation if the proceedings prove ill-founded is standard in the case of a Mareva injunction in civil proceedings. That is why paragraph (a) in each of the amendments which I have brought forward imposes a similar obligation on the prosecutor, defined by reference to the compensation provisions which already exist in Clause 79 of the Bill.
I shall shortly be moving a further amendment to delete the compensation provisions of Clause 79 in so far as they depend upon showing a serious default by some official. But that is a wholly independent point and in accepting these amendments the Committee is in no order prejudging the argument on that amendment, which is for future discussion. It is for reasons that I shall give when I move the amendment to Clause 79 of the Bill that the prosecutor who seeks and obtains an order should undertake to pay compensation if the prosecution proves ill-founded. I mention that so that the noble Earl has it in mind, but he can take it from me that acceptance of the amendments which I now propose to Clauses 67 and 68 in no way relates to acceptance of the amendments that I shall be proposing to Clause 79.
So however Clause 79 ultimately emerges in the Bill the quite independent justifications for these amendments to Clauses 67 and 68 which I now propose remain, but I have been careful to formulate them in the way that I have so that they link in to Clause 79, however it should emerge in the Bill. The noble Earl may think that this is a serious proposal and one which gives no less a protection to persons who are subject to this kind of order than they would have if they were defendants in civil litigation, and I
724
hope that he will feel able to say that it merits his taking it away and giving it careful thought.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord has raised interesting questions about the procedures for obtaining restraint and charging orders. Before I reply in some detail to the amendments, it may help if I just remind the Committee of the purpose and nature of these powers. Under the Bill the perpetrators of highly profitable serious crimes will become liable to confiscation of the value of their unlawful proceeds. But the confiscation powers will not become effective unless there is also power at an early stage in the proceedings to freeze assets so that they cannot be dissipated before the case comes to trial. Thus the Bill gives powers to the High Court to make restraint and charging orders.
The important thing about the orders is that they are only interim measures. That means two things in particular. It means that speed is of the essence. It must be possible for the prosecution to get in ahead of the criminal by obtaining an order quickly and with the minimum of procedural hurdles necessary to ensure fairness.
However, being only interim measures these orders have limited effect once they are in place. The value of the restrained property must be preserved until the issue of confiscation is decided one way or the other. The orders themselves and their terms and conditions are open to challenge at any time by the defendant or by any other affected party. This is written into the Bill in Clauses 67(5) and 68(8). The conditions for making restraint and charging orders are set out in Clause 66, which immediately precedes the clauses to which these amendments apply.
The first condition is that criminal proceedings must either be in progress or about to be started. That flexibility is important because it enables the prosecuting authorities to secure the suspect's arrest and the restraint of his assets at more or less the same time. If they could not do that they would risk allowing either the suspect or the assets to disappear.
The second condition for making a restraint or charging order is that there must either be a confiscation order in force or, more usually, a prospect of one being made upon a suspected offender's conviction. That is an important condition because of course these powers must only be used to preserve assets which are liable to be confiscated. That is their purpose.
Against this background I wish to turn to the substance of the noble Lord's amendments. It lies in the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (e) which it is proposed should be met by the prosecutor when applying for either a restraint or charging order.
The Committee will wish to bear in mind the point that speed is of the essence if the orders are to achieve their purpose but that they are only interim measures. The first requirement suggested in paragraph (a) seems unobjectionable as far as it goes. Clearly the application will have to specify any charges brought if the High Court is to be satisfied that proceedings have been instituted.
On the other hand, the requirement would not make sense in the other sort of case where a restraint

725
order is made on the basis that the proceedings are to be instituted. As I have explained, that may be necessary in some cases and Clause 66 accordingly allows it. The second requirement in paragraph (c) is that the application should fairly state the allegations against the defendant and his reply. It is not the business of the High Court to prejudge the criminal trial by way of prosecution and defence arguments as to the criminal matter itself. Indeed there may not yet be specific allegations at the stage when the restraint order is applied for. The defendant may very well have said nothing. If a restraint order were to depend on an examination of the merits of the prosecution case, it is unlikely it could be made in time to be effective.
I am less unhappy with the requirements suggested in paragraph (c). The prosecutor must certainly show grounds for believing that there has been a benefit of such an order—the £10,000 threshold—at which the confiscation powers come into play. But it would be wrong, I think, to expect the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings to show that precisely £10,000 or more has been made. The prosecutor may just have had a good suspicion that more proceeds would come to light during further investigation. That should be enough to allow a restraint order to be made in an appropriate case.
I am not exactly certain what is meant by paragraph (d) in these amendments, but I believe that paragraph (e) is unnecessary. Compensation under Clause 79 is awarded by the High Court. If the prosecutor is ordered to pay compensation naturally he will; otherwise he would be in contempt of court. I am sure our prosecutors will not get into that position and therefore it is unnecessary to require the prosecutor to undertake to pay any compensation under Clause 79.
I conclude from this examination that some of the additional requirements proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would not fit in with the scheme for making restraint and charging orders but would hold up the making of these orders, and so defeat their purpose.
On the other hand, some of the noble Lord's suggestions really go to procedural matters which we envisage will be dealt with under the rules of the High Court in the established way. We already have rules in Order 116 of the Supreme Court which govern the procedures for restraint, and charging orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. They cover matters such as the contents of the affidavit, which must support any application by the prosecutor and the procedure for the affected parties to be notified of the making of the order and to seek if they wish its discharge and variation. I am sure it would be right to deal in a similar way with procedural matters arising from similar provisions in this Bill. I hope that in view of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will not feel constrained to press these amendments.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am bound to say that at the outset of his reply, the noble Earl was stating only what is well accepted on this side: that is to say, the purpose of these provisions, which we completely support. The only question—and that is the purpose
726
of bringing forward these amendments—is whether thought could and should be given to incorporating as appropriate, for the benefit of those made subject to these orders, some of the protections that exist in civil proceedings that can usefully be adapted to this remedy without prejudicing the overall purpose of these orders, which we entirely support.
We entirely recognise of course that speed is necessary and that these are only interim measures. I understood the noble Earl to say that, for example, (a) was unobjectionable but that it did not cover the case where no charge has as yet been made. That would be covered of course by the addition of the words, "or is to be" so that (a) would read:
"state particulars of the offence or offences with which the defendant is or is to be charged".
The noble Earl said in relation to (b) that it was not for the judge to adjudicate upon the particulars given of the allegation if the amendment were accepted. We would agree not to judge, but should it not be incumbent upon the prosecutor at least to give these particulars? I hope the noble Earl will feel able to say, having heard the argument from this side, that at least he will give some thought to whether some additional provision giving some, as appropriate, of these protections that exist in the civil law to the defendant made subject to this kind of order should be made. If he can indicate that he will, that will enable me to seek leave to withdraw these amendments.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: These provisions ensure that a restraint or charging order may only be made on good grounds and that there is ample opportunity for challenge by the affected parties. To incorporate more hurdles into the procedure, as the noble Lord has suggested, would risk defeating the whole purpose of these confiscation powers by allowing sophisticated and experienced criminals to move their assets out of reach of the courts while the prosecution sought to marshall their case. I really believe that the balance in the Bill is right as it stands. In the circumstances I ask the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I will study with care what the noble Earl has said, and in the meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Charging orders in respect of land, securities, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Application of proceeds of realisation and other sums]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 50, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("property") in line 28 and insert—

("(a) the proceeds of the enforcement of any charge imposed under section 68 above:

727

(b) the proceeds of the realisation, other than by the enforcement of such a charge, of any property under section 67 or 70 above; and

(c) any other sums, being").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 86 I think it would be appropriate if I could also talk to Amendments Nos. 87 through to 98 inclusive. These amendments correct a number of drafting errors and one anomaly in Clause 71 which determines what happens to money raised in enforcement of a confiscation order. The amendments are all linked with one another but it may be convenient to look at them in three clusters, which I propose to explain in turn.
The first cluster of four amendments—Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89—correct mistakes which have unfortunately crept into the drafting of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 71. The amendments ensure that the clause applies to all sums realised by receivers under the Bill, not just of proceeds but of enforcing a charge made under Clause 68. They make one or two other minor corrections.
The second cluster in respect of anomalies covers Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93, all referring to subsection (3), which determines the order in which the justice's clerk responsible for enforcement is to apply money paid into court in satisfaction of a confiscation order. Payment should first be made to any insolvency officer acting on the property who has a claim to expenses not already met under subsection (1). The next step is to pay any receiver's costs.
Paragraph (b) in this subsection allows the receiver to recover these direct if he himself pays in the money, but there has been omitted in error another paragraph allowing payment of any expenses already advanced to the receiver by the prosecutor. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to reinstate that paragraph. Amendments Nos. 91 and 93 are consequential.
Amendments Nos. 94 to 98 make minor adjustments to subsection (4). That subsection deals with the situation where the sentencing court has directed, under Clause 62(4), that part of the sums recovered under a confiscation order shall be applied in payment of a compensation order because of an apparent shortfall in the offender's means. In that situation it is provided that a deduction should be made from the amount of compensation paid out of confiscated assets by way of a contribution towards the costs of any receiver. The principle behind this is that the help of expert receivers working under the direction of the High Court to trace and realise assets would not normally be available to a person seeking compensation unless they were to undertake expensive civil actions privately. It is therefore right and fair that the beneficiary of a receiver's action should make a contribution to the costs involved.
However, the present provision contains an anomaly. It provides for the contribution to be made only where the compensation money comes directly from a receiver. It does not take account of the case where the receiver's action in tracing the assets in effect forces the defendant to pay up, even though it is not actually the receiver himself who collects the money. Nor does it necessarily cover the case where
728
the receiver works to the benefit of the compensated person by keeping up the value of assets entrusted to him under a restraining order.
We consider it to be right that the person receiving compensation should also contribute to the receiver's costs in these cases. Accordingly, the amendments would make contributions due in any case where the receiver has done work towards the recovery of assets which subsequently help to satisfy a compensation order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 98:
Page 50, line 30, after ("77") insert ("(2)").
Page 50, line 31, leave out ("proceeds and").
Page 50, line 40, leave out from ("may") to end of line 41 and insert ("direct after giving a reasonable opportunity for such persons to make representations to the court").
Page 51, line 3, after ("77") insert ("(2)").
Page 51, line 4, leave out ("so paid, shall first be applied in payment of the receiver's") and insert ("paid by a receiver under subsection (1) above, shall first be applied in payment of his").
Page 51, line 5, at end insert—
("(bb) subject to paragraph (b) above, shall be applied in reimbursement of any sums paid by the prosecutor under section 78(2) below:").
Page 51, line 6, leave out ("and (b)") and insert ("to (bb)").
Page 51, line 13, leave out from ("Where") to ("shall") in line 15 and insert ("under subsections (3) above a sum falls to be applied in payment both of compensation and of other outgoings—
(a) the person entitled to the compensation").
Page 51, line 17, leave out from ("remuneration") to first ("the") in line 18 and insert ("or expenses").
Page 51, line 20, leave out ("under which the sum was recovered").
Page 51, line 22, leave out from ("clerk") to ("an") in line 23 and insert ("shall deduct from the amount falling to be applied in payment of the compensation").
Page 51, line 27, leave out from ("person") to ("and") in line 29 and insert ("entitled to the compensation shall be treated as having received the whole amount which falls to be applied in payment of it").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments No. 87 to 98.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 99:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to give notice when realisable property exceeds amount of the confiscation order
.—(1) A receiver appointed by the Court in respect of realisable property under section 70(2) above shall be under a duty to give notice in writing to the prosecutor when it appears to him that the amount of realisable property exceeds the amount of the confiscation order, specifying the amount of such excess.
(2) If, on an application by the prosecutor in respect of a confiscation order, the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property exceeds the amount of the confiscation order, the Court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving its reasons, and specifying the amount of such excess.
(3) Where a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) above the prosecutor may apply—

(a) where the confiscation order was made by the Crown Court. to that Court; and

(b) where the confiscation order was made by a magistrates' court, to a magistrates' court for the same area.

for the amount to be recovered under the order to be increased.
(4) The Crown Court shall, on an application under subsection (3) above—

(a) substitute for the amount to be recovered under the order such greater amount as the Court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case; and

(b) substitute for the term of imprisonment or of detention fixed under subsection (2) of section 31 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Acts 1973 in respect of the amount to be recovered under the order a longer term determined in accordance with that section in respect of the greater amount.

(56) A magistrates' court shall, on an application under subsection (3) above, substitute for the amount to be recovered under the order such greater amount as the Court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that this new section which I am proposing finds more favour with the noble Earl. It is proposed in order to fill what would appear to me to be a major gap or imbalance in the scheme of the Bill. That is a gap which could, in some cases, seriously inhibit the overall effectiveness of the provisions. I observe that it is a gap which likewise exists in the drug trafficking legislation of 1986.
Just as a confiscation order may be revised downwards in favour of a defendant, the point of the amendment is that it should be capable of being revised upwards if the receiver discovers that the realisable property in fact exceeds (it may be, very substantially) what the Crown Court or the magistrates' court was led to believe.
Suppose a bank robber has made, let us say, £500,000 from three robberies. The Crown Court is minded to make a confiscation order in that sum of £500,000. The defendant then says, "You cannot do that. I have prior obligations amounting to £450,000". And so he has. Therefore, the confiscation order that is made is made for £50,000 only. That would be made under Clause 64(3)(d). Alternatively, let us say that the robber has made his £500,000 from three robberies but he persuades the court that all he has left in the world is £50,000. Therefore, that is all that can be realised. That order would be made under Clause 61(6)(b). Those are very realistic examples.
Not to put too fine a point on it, suppose that he succeeds in conning the court. Either he may have more assets than he has said or they are worth a good deal more than the court is led to believe. In the major cases of which we are speaking, where a receiver is appointed under Clause 70(2), it seems to me that it is a serious gap in the legislation when there is no power to revise a confiscation order upwards, although there is a power to revise such orders downwards.
Not only is it obvious that the receiver is better able to ferret out the truth than was the court when it made the order, but suppose, for example, that the receiver was able to track £10 million in a Swiss bank account. That money would be realisable if the defendant co-operated and unlocked the account. Surely it would be a salutary spur to the defendant to unlock the bank account to increase the amount of the order, providing a longer sentence of imprisonment in default under subsection (4) if the confiscation order in the greater amount was not satisfied.
I bring the matter forward as a point of principle, as to whether confiscation orders should not be capable of being revised upwards as well as
730
downwards if the receiver discovers that the court has been conned.
The Earl of Arran: I recognise that the noble Lord's concern in this amendment is partly to avoid undue burdens on the sentencing court in trying to assess precisely the available property. However, I do not think that those burdens will be as great as he fears. In the more complex cases involving substantial assets, a great deal of investigative work will have been done in gathering evidence and securing restraint of assets before the trial. The procedure in Clause 63 enables the necessary information to be put before the court and, in disputed matters, determined in an orderly way.
However, in view of the words which the noble Lord has used, we should like to re-examine this particular matter without commitment to see if there is any further change or addition than can be made.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He appreciates that I am in no way criticising the procedures that the court will apply. So far as I am concerned, and I say this with genuine respect for the draftsmen of the Bill, it is about as good as could be devised. All I am pointing out is that there is no procedure ever devised that is capable of preventing a court from being deceived. We are dealing with defendants who, par excellence, have an interest in deceiving the court. I am pointing out that if the receiver—and he is the man who, at leisure, is in a position to discover whether the court was deceived as to assets—discovers greater assets, then surely it is manifestly clear that there should be a power to increase the amount of confiscation order upwards. For then, ex hypothesi, it has been discovered that the court was deceived. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the matter will be considered further. For my own part, I believe that there is something serious to be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Sequestration in Scotland of defendant, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 54, line 36, at end insert:—
("and it shall not he competent to submit a claim in relation to the confiscation order to the permanent trustee in accordance with section 48 of that Act.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 100, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and No. 102. These are minor amendments of a rather technical nature and I shall be very brief.
Clauses 74 to 77 cover the relationship between various kinds of insolvency proceedings and restraint and confiscation under the Bill where the same property is liable to both kinds of action at once. It has been drawn to our attention that the fact that an amount is owing under a confiscation order should not he the basis for instituting sequestration or liquidation proceedings. The two kinds of action, insolvency and confiscation, may arise separately or even simultaneously but they should not cause each other to happen. These amendments will ensure that

731
they cannot. The Committee will note that they apply only to Scottish insolvency actions. That is because the matter is already dealt with in the rules for the purposes of insolvency in England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Winding up of company holding realisable property]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 56, line 15, at end insert:—
(4A) For the purposes of the application of Parts IV and V of the Insolvency Act 1986 (winding up of registered companies and winding up of unregistered companies) to a company which the Court of Session has jurisdiction to wind up, a person is not a creditor in so far as any sum due to him by the company is due in respect of a confiscation order.".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 56, line 31, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Insolvency Act 1986").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Compensation]:
9 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 58, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: I understand that Amendments Nos. 103 and 106 are to be taken together and therefore I deal with them together.
I hope I have already made it plain to the Committee that I, like other noble Lords on this side of the Committee, am totally in favour of proper legislative provision designed to stop offenders enjoying their ill-gotten gains. Confiscation orders, restraint orders, charging orders—these are all necessary weapons in the armoury of powers needed to achieve that end. I need not be told by the noble Earl of the worth of orders of this kind, because on this side of the Committee that is totally accepted.
The point of this amendment is that, like all powerful weapons, they are capable of wounding the innocent as well as the guilty. For my part I am reluctant that Parliament should, as it were, release the safety catch without making proper provision for the compensation of innocent victims.
Clause 79 looks to the situation where proceedings eventually result in an acquittal or in a conviction being quashed on appeal or in the offender being pardoned. In the meantime a person has suffered loss because one of these three orders has affected his property.
The first principle is that that person has suffered an injustice and he ought to be compensated. I think Clause 79 recognises that. The purpose of this amendment is to deal with two restrictions which I
732
suggest are unjustifiable and which these amendments would seek to remove.
First, the High Court must be satisfied that the applicant has suffered substantial loss: that is provided for in subsection (2)(b). If that means that there must be some loss which is not merely negligible or nominal, then it hardly seems worthy of inclusion. I welcome hearing what the noble Earl has to say on this subject. If the expression "substantial loss" confines, or is intended to confine, the jurisdiction to cases where the loss is large, then I ask, why should the applicant who has suffered a small but real loss be shut out from compensation?
There is obviously a real risk, and indeed perhaps a likelihood, that the courts will interpret the provision as it at present stands as meaning that the loss must be large.
The question which I invite the noble Earl to deal with specifically is this. Why should the applicant who has suffered a real loss although not a large one be shut out from compensation? I do not know of any principle that losses which are not large but which are real losses should not be compensated. I cannot think of any reason why such a principle should be imported here.
Secondly, and I think more importantly, there is a very important restriction contained in subsection (2)(a). The proceedings must have been instituted or continued as the result of serious default—and I emphasise "serious default—by one of the persons mentioned in subsection (4)—that is to say, essentially, serious default on the part of the investigating or prosecuting authorities.
Never mind the hours of wasted time that will be devoted to argument about whether there was default and if so whether it was "serious"—whatever that may mean. Never mind that the court will have to trawl through reams of evidence about how the investigation and the prosecution were actually conducted so as to arrive at an answer. Never mind the damage to the morale of the police and the Crown prosecution service. The point is this. Here is a draconian order which the court has been empowered to make—quite rightly—in order that society as a whole shall be better protected from criminal activity. Here is a person who has suffered loss through that order. It now transpires that the order undoubtedly was not justified. Why should society not, in these circumstances, be ready to pay compensation? Does it really matter whether the error was the result of someone's negligence or serious default or whether it was simply one of those unfortunate things that seemed a good idea at the time? I can see no reason—and I should be interested to hear what a good reason would be—why the individual, in all probability already subjected to considerable inconvenience and stigma, should bear the loss as well.
Those are the two points on which I invite the noble Earl to give some careful thought. In the expectation that he may be willing to do so I continue in this way. If compensation ceases to be dependent on proof of serious default, subsection (4) cannot stand in its present form. Therefore, I have moved that it be deleted. That leaves no provision as to the person or body by whom compensation is to be paid,

733
but no doubt the Government will be able to introduce such a provision on Report. I favour payment out of central government funds.
I should add that if the amendments moved to Clauses 67 and 68 find favour with the Minister—though I had little comfort from him at an earlier stage—this problem would be solved where the loss results from the imposition of a restraint order or a charging order. That is because the prosecutor will have undertaken to pay compensation in accordance with Clause 79. However, where the loss results from an order made following a conviction which was subsequently quashed on appeal, provision would still have to be made. If the Minister is minded to give consideration to this, then my last points will need to be borne in mind.
Although subsection (3) is no doubt wide enough as it stands to cover the situation, I should have thought it desirable to make clear that a person who has brought suspicion on himself may very well expect to lose some or all of his compensation, and that was the purpose of the proposed addition to that subsection. I beg to move. I am also moving Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106, as everything I said applies to them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The procedure is that the noble Lord has sought the permission of the Committee to speak to the other amendments. He has moved the first amendment and the others will be dealt with subsequently.
The Earl of Arran: I must begin by saying that there is nothing new in the provision in Clause 79. It has never been accepted that compensation should he payable simply because the prosecution has been unable to discharge the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the specific charge that was brought. The circumstances in which compensation may be paid under Clause 79 are broadly those in which successive governments have paid ex gratia compensation to people who have been imprisoned after a wrongful conviction; and they are the same conditions as those applied in identical circumstances, but in relation to drug trafficking cases, by Section 19 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Compensation is payable at the discretion of the High Court in the case of a defendant or, indeed, a third party who has suffered substantial loss, where the prosecution would not have been brought or continued but for the serious default of someone involved in the investigation or prosecution.
These amendments invite us to take a different approach and to depart from the policy reaffirmed only last year in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. I do not think it would be right to do so. First, the amendments would remove the requirement on the High Court to be satisfied that there was serious default in the investigation or prosecution. Instead of compensation being payable where the prosecution was clearly at fault, and therefore responsible for the applicant's loss, there would be a presumption in favour of compensation. The presumption would be there even if the prosecution case had failed on a technicality. It would be wrong to create a presumption of compensation which inhibited the
734
prosecution from acting in the public interest in these serious cases, bearing in mind the safeguards built into the procedures and the burden of proof the prosecution must discharge.
Secondly, the amendment would change the requirement to show "substantial loss" to one of simply "loss". There is no intention to penalise those whom a jury fail to convict; but equally it would be wrong to allow scope for frivolous or trivial claims. The High Court could be drawn into considerable work deciding in relation to small amounts whether a person whose assets were restrained and managed by a receiver was better or worse off than if they had continued to manage it themselves. That is a good reason for confining this power to cases where serious damage has been done to a person's wealth or livelihood and where the fault for that lies clearly with the prosecution. I hope therefore in these circumstances that the noble Lord will reconsider his amendments and will not press them.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall not for obvious reasons press them. I see no need to reconsider because I am distinctly unimpressed by the answers that have been given to the points that I have made. The noble Lord has repeated the Government's position without meeting the arguments that have been put. In passing, he appears to have devalued the value of an acquittal. It appears to me to be quite obvious if a defendant is acquitted that he should be compensated for the loss he has suffered and that it should not be dependent upon the proof of serious default on the part of those responsible for prosecuting him. I would dispute the proposition that a claim is frivolous because the amount claimed is not substantial. However, I appreciate that the argument has not fallen upon receptive ears and I therefore seek to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Part V—Interpretation]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 65, line 37, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("to (6)").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 107 I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 108. These are drafting amendments designed to make clearer and simpler certain provisions in Clause 91 which governs the interpretation of key terms used in this part of the Bill.
Clause 91(2) is a form of index showing where the definitions of certain terms are to be found in the body of Part V.
The last term listed, "value of property", is shown as being defined in clause 64, subsections (4) and (5). That is indeed where the value of property, in the ordinary sense, is defined. However, subsection (6) of the same clause goes on to define the value of property in the special sense of the property an offender has obtained from his offence: in other

735
words, his proceeds. The purpose of the first of these amendments is to ensure that the definition of "value of property" extends to that subsection as well.
The second of these amendments is designed to simplify subsection (13) of Clause 91. That subsection defines the circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Part of the Bill, a confiscation order is to be treated as subject to appeal. This is important because until any appeal is heard and until the ordinary time for appeal has elapsed, no action may be taken by the High Court to enforce a confiscation order by realising the property of the offender or of third parties. That is an important safeguard. However, the present rather complicated definition in subsection (13) contains a possible loophole. If a confiscation order were made not at the time of conviction but by the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Crown Court, and a further appeal to the House of Lords was pending, the order might under this definition not be regarded as subject to appeal.
In seeking to remedy this defect we have concluded that the substance of this provision could be expressed more straightforwardly simply by saying that an order is subject to appeal for as long as there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside. Appeals out of time must of course be disregarded otherwise enforcement action could never take place.
The amendment is an improvement on the existing provisions and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 67, line 1, leave out from first ("appeal") to end of line 5 and insert ("until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Drug trafficking amendments]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 104, line 1, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 109 I should also like to take en bloc Amendments Nos. 110 to 118. Very briefly, these amendments make various necessary minor changes in Schedule 4. The first and larger part of that schedule is a list of small amendments to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which introduced the powers of confiscation under which the provisions in Part V of this Bill are very much based. With the benefit of more time for reflection, we have been able in the Bill to improve on the earlier model in a few small respects. It seems helpful to make the small adjustments necessary to bring the Drug Trafficking Offences Act into line. Consistency on these detailed points will help the courts and prosecuting services and avoid unnecessary confusion.
The Committee has already agreed a number of further small amendments to the Bill, and the amendments now before us for the most part bring
736
Schedule 4, and therefore the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, into line. Amendment No. 110 has the same effect in that Act as Amendments Nos. 86 to 89 in the Bill, Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 the same as Amendment No. 100, and Amendment No. 117 the same as Amendment No. 108. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 are consequential upon Amendment No. 110. Amendments Nos. 109 and 111 simply correct drafting errors in Schedule 4.
The second part of Schedule 4 corrects a few minor drafting defects in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, which have come to attention since the Act was passed. Amendment No. 118 will enable two further such changes to be made. The first is needed simply to eliminate a non sequitur in Section 34(6)(d) of the Scottish Act. The second inserts in Section 38(5) of that Act some words, omitted in error, which enable Customs officers as well as police officers to exercise the powers of entry under that section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 118:
Page 104, line 5, at end insert—
("6A.—(1) Section 12 (application of proceeds of realisation and other sums) shall be amended as follows.
(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (3) after the word "follows"—
"(za) if not paid by a receiver under subsection (1) above it shall first be applied in payment of such expenses as are payable under section 17A(2) of this Act;"
(3) In paragraph (b), for the word "paragraph there shall shall be substituted the words "paragraphs (za) and".").
Page 104, line 5, at end insert—
("6B. In section 15 (bankruptcy of defendant etc.)—

(a) subsection (5)(b) and (c) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) the following paragraph shall be substituted for subsection (7)(d)—

"(d) subsection (2)(b) is omitted.".").
Page 104, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
("7.—(1) Section 16 (sequestration in Scotland of defendant etc.) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words "and it shall not be competent to submit a claim in relation to the confiscation order to the permanent trustee in accordance with section 48 of that Act".
(3) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5)—").
Page 104, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Page 104, line 17, leave out paragraph 8.
Page 105, line 12, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("za)").
Page 105, line 25, leave out paragraph 11.
Page 106, line 42, at end insert—
("13A. The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (13) of section 38 (general interpretation)—
"(13) An order is subject to appeal until (disregarding) any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could he varied or set aside.".
("13B. In section 40(4) (effect of Act in Scotland). in paragraph (b), for "17" there shall be substituted "17A".").
Page 107, line 4, at end insert—
("17. In section 34(6)(d) (bankruptcy in England and Wales of person holding realisable property) for the words "subsections (2)(b) and (4) are" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (2)(b) is".
18. In subsection (5) of section 38 (order to permit entry to premises) after the word "constable" there shall be inserted the words "or person commissioned as aforesaid".").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 119:
After Clause 93, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for persons convicted but later exonerated.
.The Secretary of State shall make provision for the payment of compensation to any person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has subsequently been reversed, or who has been pardoned, on the ground that a new, or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.").
The noble and learned Lord said: It is time to take pause, because we now move to a very important amendment indeed. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is here. Unhappily the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is not able to be with us. This amendment breaks important new ground. It is long overdue because it gives effect to a convention which we entered into 21 years ago, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are bound by that convention and no reservations have been made with regard to it.
The relevant part, which is in substance set out in the new clause, provides in Article 14, paragraph 6:
"When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as the result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law"—
I stress the words "according to law—
"unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him".
Amendment No. 119 sets out that language, as the Committee will see, if the amendment is studied. The article in question, to which we seek to give effect to achieve compliance, provides that compensation shall be paid in the circumstances described in the article and in the amendment, namely, on the ground that there has been a reversal of the conviction or a pardon,
"on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice".
Then there is the safeguarding provision:
"unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him".
At present, the Home Secretary administers an ex-gratia compensation scheme for such cases. The scope of that he described in an Answer to a Written Question in another place on 29th November, 1985. He then said that he was:
"prepared to pay compensation to all such persons where this is required by our international obligations".—[Official Report, House of Commons; 29/11/85; c 691.]
Fine. So far, so good! But what followed? The scheme that he then described remains only ex-gratia, subject entirely to his discretion. As I understand it, it is not enforceable. In my submission it still leaves the United Kingdom, instead of proceeding according to law as the convention requires, unnecessarily in breach of those obligations.
The amendment seeks to remedy that undesirable position by putting the Secretary of State under an express statutory obligation, but without requiring him to do anything that he does not already claim to do and without setting up any new bureaucracy or new or special tribunals.
Our submission is that compensation for wrongful imprisonment is, in any case, too important to be left to ministerial discretion, particularly where the Minister concerned is responsible for some of the bodies—for example, the police, whose actions from time to time have led to wrongful conviction. It should be noted that the amendment is modest in its attempted embrace. It does not require the Secretary of State to pay compensation in a number of other cases where there is frequently a demand for compensation, such as directed acquittals by the judge after long remands in custody—that is one of the black features of our administration of justice, but it is not provided for—or the quashing of convictions because of substantial misdirections by the judge at the trial. Alas, that happens from time to time.
In such cases it might well be argued that there is a strong case for compensation. It is felt, however, that that would undoubtedly raise some difficult consequential problems, such as the introduction of a new concept of degrees of innocence and other difficulties: so in this amendment we have confined the protection and the compensation to the injured citizen to the irreducible minimum with which we are required to comply by international law and by our acceptance of the convention. The amendment is confined to what our obligations are. It does not extend the nature of those obligations. Accordingly, I hope that on this matter at any rate we shall get an early acceptance of this clear international obligation that falls upon us. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I think I spy a slight gleam in the eye of the Minister, and therefore I shall say only a few words in supporting this amendment. I do so with great humility having regard to the distinction of those noble and learned Lords whose names appear with mine. We are dealing with deprivation of liberty—wrongful imprisonment—and surely that is one of the most serious injuries than can be done to a citizen.
If ever there were a civil right, surely this is it. It is so serious that compensation must be far too important a matter to be left to ministerial discretion, particularly, as the noble and learned Lord has said, when the Minister in question is responsible for the police. Compensation should be according to law, and this amendment surely also provides for the very minimum situation that should be met according to our international obligations.
No doubt one day, if this becomes part of the statute, we shall reach compensation for directed acquittals and compensation for quashing as a result of judicial mistakes, and shall get over the view which still hangs around, I am afraid, of a presumption of guilt when someone is acquitted in that way. I would ask the Minister at long last actually to accept an amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I should say at once that the Government fully appreciate the purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. As he has explained, the amendment seeks to enact the provisions of an article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, paragraph 6 of Article 14 states that compensation should be paid according to law. He has argued most eloquently that for the United Kingdom fully and properly to meet the provisions of the article there should be legislation to make sure that compensation is paid to those who have had their convictions reversed in the circumstances which it sets out.
I should make it clear that the Government believe that we do already fully follow the spirit of these obligations.
As the noble and learned Lord said, our arrangements for the payment of compensation to those who have been wrongly convicted were set out by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in reply to a parliamentary Question in another place on 29th November 1985. As he explained, there is no statutory provision for the payment of compensation to those who turn out to have been wrongly convicted.
Nevertheless, the arrangements he set out take full account of our international obligations. Indeed, they go some way beyond them, for my right honourable friend has made it clear that he reserves the discretion to make an ex gratia award in cases to which paragraph 6 of Article 14 would not apply. The Government believe, therefore, that there is no question but that this country fully meets the spirit of its obligations under the article.
Nevertheless, we have some sympathy with the intentions of the noble and learned Lords' amendment. We understand why it has been introduced. We accept that to have our arrangements for the kind of case defined in the article enshrined in legislation would place our compliance beyond doubt. However, sadly, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that I do not believe we can accept the amendment as it is drafted because it is in a particular respect different from the provisions of Article 14.6.
The words of paragraph 6 of Article 14 make it clear that it envisages compensation being paid only in these cases where a conviction is reversed after "final decision". This clearly means a decision which is no longer open to challenge under the normal judicial process. We therefore take those words "final decision" to exclude from the obligation to compensate a case in which the decision taken by the court of trial was to acquit or an appeal court set aside a conviction under the appeal procedure. Our understanding of the article's intentions is that the compensation should be paid in circumstances where a new fact has emerged and where the normal working of the judicial system has not revealed the wrongful conviction. I have to say also that the amendment is in a practical but important respect somewhat vague and that it merely empowers the Secretary of State to make provision for the payment
740
of compensation but does not say in what form or with what sort of machinery he is to do so.
I hope that the Committee will agree that some more elaborate and detailed provision is needed if we are to give proper effect to the provisions of Article 14 paragraph 6. Nevertheless, I can say that we shall consider sympathetically whether it is possible to devise a provision which could be added without overloading what is an already heavy Bill. It is only fair to say to the Committee that it may not be possible to complete this consideration by Report stage.
I hope that that promise will be sufficient to persuade the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment. I repeat that I undertake that we shall consider it very carefully and fully understand the intentions behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I too thought that there was a glint in the eye of the Minister but it must have been that he had decided at that stage to reward the Committee with a speech in which he said that everything in the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend was understandable and good but that unfortunately there was a reason why it could not be inserted in this Bill. Possibly the glint was an indication that the Minister thought that with those words he would satisfy the Committee. Perhaps I may say that in those circumstances I do not think that the glint was at all justified.
The case has been made out for an international obligation and, as the Minister said, for it properly to become a legal obligation and not a discretionary right. I would remind him that we used to have those arguments in regard to compensation for those who were injured as a result of crime. That compensation was going to be discretionary, and it was argued that it was all right for it to be discretionary, but Parliament decided that it was not all right. We now have a promise of that becoming a statutory obligation. There is no difference between the two.
The Committee stage of a Bill in this Chamber is a stage at which principles are adumbrated and adopted or not. I respectfully remind the Minister that this Chamber never deals with amendments by way of esoteric criticism, saying that the words possibly are not suitable or that some part of the amendment is not practicable when the major part of it can be implemented.
I had hoped that, having conceded that it was right for there to be such an obligation and having conceded our international duty and the Government's intention to perform it, the Minister would say, "In principle, this amendment is accepted. There may be parts of it which, in order to accord with Article 14, paragraph 6, will have to be altered, but the Government will bring in an amendment at Report stage which deals precisely with the obligations under that article and therefore the principle of the management is accepted". The Minister will disappoint all of us it he does not say in frankness that that is the Government's position at this stage.
Lord Wigoder: Will the Minister be good enough to consider taking the advice of the Law Lords on this matter before the next stage of the Bill? It is extremely unfortunate that so far, on every occasion that we have discussed this Bill, when there has been a proposal that might increase the likelihood of conviction the Law Lords have been present and expressed themselves in force and strength, but when we finally reach the stage of what happens if there is a wrongful conviction, unhappily none of them is able to be here.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is very rare for me to disagree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, but this appears to be one of those rare occasions when his judgment was at fault when he thought he was able to detect a gleam of hope from the features of the noble Earl.
The fact is that I agree very much with what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. With great respect to the noble Earl, so far as the language of this convention is concerned we are not interested in living within the spirit of the convention. What we wish to do, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones said, is to live within the letter of this convention and, with great respect to the noble Earl, he did not meet that argument at all.
I take his point about Report stage, which is only 13 days away from the last day on which we are considering this Bill, but if he is prepared now to indicate that if he cannot do it at Report stage he will do it at Third Reading in this House, I think he will put our minds at rest. We do not wish to be unreasonable about this. We accept the immense pressure of work so far as the department is concerned in what is a very limited period of time. But I think he must go further than he has gone so far and indicate to us in clear and unequivocal language that by the time we reach Third Reading there will he a government amendment on this point.
The Earl of Caithness: I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made about accepting the principle and not necessarily the wording of the amendment. I remember that from my days as a Back-Bencher when I was particularly keen, and I hope that I have bent over backwards to meet that particular concern.
I do not know whether I can make the promise that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, wants. The promise I can make is that I will consider the matter very sympathetically, as I said when I responded to the arguments put forward. It needs consideration with the Law Officers, and indeed with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Whether we can do it by Third Reading I am not sure. If we can, I would very much like to bring forward the necessary amendment to this House. But I think it is important that we get it right rather than hurry it through. I had a long and detailed discussion this morning with the legal advisers on this matter. It is not just a simple amendment of about 10 lines, because there are various additions to be included. I think it is right that we get it correct, but I can say that it will he looked at very sympathetically.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am very glad to get that assurance. I am bound to say that great care has been taken in preparing the new clause to comply as exactly as possible with the actual language of the convention. The only matter that is slightly in dispute is one very small part of paragraph 6, when a person has by a final decision been convicted. But I should have thought that was clear enough and that there is a clear obligation. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said, to state that the Government have endeavoured to comply with the spirit of the matter just is not good enough. It may indeed in a certain sense go further, but that is not what we have in issue. There is a clear duty here. We as a country take some pride in compliance with the obligations that we entered into on these conventions. That is why we do not enter into too many of them.
But unless we have the assurance that, certainly before this Bill leaves this House, something will be done to achieve precise compliance with the terms of the convention—earthquakes may happen, we may have another ghastly Friday, I know not; we are subject to the problems of human survival and all the rest of it—and get a governmental undertaking in clear terms, we shall be deeply disappointed.
If I may say so, as yet there has not been much sign of the giving of concessions, but this is a matter of fundamental importance, affecting not only the interests of our fellow subjects but our standing in the international comity in respect of compliance with our international duties. From the silent response to what I have said, may I gather that I can rest upon a prospect of the kind that I have indicated?
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I remained seated because I felt that I could add no more to what I said earlier. I can only repeat that I shall discuss this as a matter of urgency with my right honourable friend. If we can come back before the Bill leaves this House, we shall endeavour to do so. From the advice that I received this morning, however, it seems more complicated than one short amendment. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Happily, there are other stages ahead. I do not know whether my presence in the United States celebrating the bicentennial of its constitution will enable me to be present on Report, but noble colleagues in different parts of the Chamber have been listening carefully. We shall come back to it stage by stage as the matter proceeds because there is a clear obligation with which a law-abiding government I hope will comply. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Enforcement of compensation orders]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 69, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 70 and insert—
("Enforcement and appeals.
36.—(1) A person in whose favour a compensation order is made shall not he entitled to receive the amount due to him until

743
(disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside.").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 70, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) The Court of Appeal may by order annul or vary any compensation order made by the court of trial, although the conviction is not quashed: and the order, if annulled, shall not take effect and, if varied, shall take effect as varied.
(4) Where the House of Lords restores a conviction, it may make any compensation order which the court of trial could have made.
(5) Where a compensation order has been made against any person in respect of an offence taken into consideration in determining his sentence—

(a) the order shall cease to have effect if he successfully appeals against his conviction of the offence or, if more than one, all the offences, of which he was convicted in the proceedings in which the order was made;

(b) he may appeal against the order as if it were part of the sentence imposed in respect of the offence or, if more than one, any of the offences, of which he was so convicted.").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 70, line 16, after ("pay") insert ("but at a time when (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside").
The noble Earl said: The effect of this amendment is to restrict the court's powers to discharge or reduce the amount of a compensation order until there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside. The power of the court to grant leave to appeal out of time would be disregarded for the purpose of deciding whether there is a further possibility of appeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 70, line 52, leave out from ("but") to end of line 33 on page 71 and insert ("the plaintiff may only recover an amount equal to the aggregate of the following:

(a) any amount by which they exceed the compensation; and

(b) a sum equal to any portion of the compensation which he fails to recover,

and may not enforce the judgment, so far as it relates to a sum such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above, without the leave of the court.").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 97 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Compensation]:
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 124 is agreed to, I shall not call Amendment No. 125 or Amendment No. 126.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 111, leave out lines 3 to 28 and insert—
("Claims for compensation.
1. The Board shall not award compensation to a person unless, in addition to any other conditions relating to it being satisfied, he has made a claim for it—

(a) before the end of the relevant period; and

(b) in the manner prescribed under paragraph 17 below.

1A.—(l) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, application for compensation shall be entertained only if made within three years of the incident giving rise to the injury, except that the Board may in exceptional circumstances waive this requirement.
(2) If the Board have previously awarded compensation in respect of the injury, an application for compensation in respect of it may be made within three years beginning with the date of the award, or latest award, in respect of it.
(3) The Board may entertain a claim made at any time for compensation in respect of an injury in respect of which they have made a previous award if—

(a) at the time of that award they stated that the evidence before them showed that a particular medical condition might arise as a result of the injury; and

(b) the claim is in respect of such a condition.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment does not alter the purpose of a paragraph but serves to separate the proposition that a claim must be made in time and in the appropriate form from the details about the time limits for making a claim. It also corrects an omission. The appropriate time is the date of the incident that gave rise to the injury, as at present the non-statutory scheme provides. The three-year time limit will run from the date of the incident in all cases except where the board has previously awarded compensation for the same injury when time runs from the date of the award or the latest award.
It may be convenient if I comment upon the two subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 124A and 124B and indicate that I shall in each case look at the point raised. In Amendment No. 124A instances where no claim is made by or on behalf of an injured person who then dies as a result of the injury more than three years after the incident are likely to be extremely rare or sufficiently rare perhaps to be left to the discretion that the board provided for in the present amendment. However, I accept that there may be a case for making a specific provision and I undertake to look at that.
As regards Amendment No. 124B I am not sure that it would be right, as this amendment provides, to allow applications for further awards after a deterioration in an injury to be made as a matter of course many years after the date of the last award. But the present amendment, No. 124, will preserve the board's power to waive the three-year time limit in the case of first applications where there are exceptional circumstances.
Whether a similar discretion should be maintained for cases where an unforeseen deterioration has occurred is a matter for argument upon which I should like to reflect further. On that basis perhaps the member of the Committee who tabled that amendment might wish to consider the position in the light of what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 124, Amendment No. 124A:
In paragraph 1A.—(1), line 3, after ("injury") insert ("or in the case of death caused by the incident, of the date of death").
The noble Lord said: First, I have to declare an interest as I am a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I have the honour to have been a member since 1979.
This is another of the occurrences which seem to happen fairly regularly to those members of the Committee who have a predilection to returning to their wives north of the Border. It seems that their amendments tend to get dealt with late on a Thursday evening. That is unfortunate.
More pertinently, this is a very important part of the Bill. Victims of crimes of violence are numerous among the citizens of this state. The number of claims to the board has increased by something like 10 per cent. per annum. It is now running at 45,000 per year. It is very unfortunate that at this late stage of the evening these provisions should be discussed when there is not apparently going to be very much beyond a discussion between the noble and learned Lord opposite and myself, with the assistance I hope of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
It is unfortunate that this matter, in which the innocent victims of crime have a considerable interest, should be left to the Committee to discuss at seven minutes to ten, with the stated intention that we should get through 90 amendments before we rise this evening. We do not appear to be giving an advertisement of a very careful consideration of the amendments.
For a dependant who wishes to claim as the result of the death of somebody which occurred because of a crime of violence the date which is interesting is the date of death. People should take any time limit from the date of death. That is the period which I sought in Amendment No. 124A and that is the reason for it. One can think of many cases where people are kept alive after an assault and then unfortunately die. If they die, say, two years after the assault, that leaves the relatives who have a right of action only one year in which to get going, whereas in any other case they have three years. Therefore I am glad that the noble and learned Lord is prepared to think about that.
As regards Amendment No. 124B, the attitude of the noble Lord astonishes me. It appears that the department for which he is speaking at the moment has never heard of' the AIDS disease, which has at least come to the notice of the Department of Health and Social Security.
If one thinks of the victims of rape, prison officers and police officers who get assaulted and frequently bitten in assaults by people who may or may not be carrying the AIDS virus, they are in a situation where, if my information is correct, it may be five years before anyone can be certain that they are not carrying the virus, and it will be a very much longer time before anybody can be certain that they are not going to contract the disease.
It seems to me wildly inappropriate to say that somebody who is bitten gets an award and if he gets it and four years later develops AIDS, he should have no claim. It is equally inappropriate in the many cases
746
that the board has had to deal with where some years after an assault people develop arthritis, which causes them to have to give up their job. I hope this will be considered with rather more care than appears to have been expressed in the brief— because it cannot have been the considered thinking of the noble and learned Lord—with which he has been provided.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have indicated that I will look at this matter, and of course I shall read what the noble Lord has just said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124B not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 127.
Page 111, line 28, at end insert—
("(5) A decision by the Chairman of the Board or a member of the Board nominated by him not to allow the application to be made out of time, or not to allow a claim under section 100(2) to be made, shall be final.").
The noble Lord said: This is a provision which is operated by the board at the moment under the scheme which is in operation where if a claim is made at the time it goes to the chairman or, in his unavoidable absence, to someone he nominates to decide whether the claim should be considered. One must have, as a matter of practical politics, some finality somewhere, and I would have thought there was something to he said for this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We should like to consider whether changes should be made to allow this point to be covered in the rules or whether to cover it in Schedule 6 as proposed. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In view of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 128.
Page 111, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: Sub-paragraph (4) of this schedule is a very difficult concept. It suggests that the board having determined to limit the scope of the hearing and the claimant being aggrieved, should be able to have the claim fully reconsidered. It appears to me that those who are advising the noble and learned Lord do not understand the point of this. There are cases where the board considers whether the low limit has been met.
We consider that before we consider whether the crime of violence has happened at all. If we come to the view that on no consideration can the award reach the low limit, it seems totally unreasonable to ask for a power so that we have to go back and

747
consider whether in fact there has been a crime of violence which comes within the scheme. It does not really matter whether a person has or has not had a black eye, if it is not going to come into the lower limit level. That is why we consider that this paragraph is wholly misconceived and can only have been propounded by those who have no real experience of how the hearing system works as it does at the moment.
10 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: With great respect to the noble Lord, I think that we understand how the scheme operates. The provision was designed to allow an applicant to apply for a second hearing where the board had excluded at the first hearing an issue which the applicant wished to be considered in the determination of his case. Indeed, the ability of the board to hold a hearing which only goes to certain issues such as eligibility is a feature of the current scheme.
The Bill provides that the board may hold a hearing in relation to specific issues and then deal with other issues, such as, for example, the quantum of the award, on the case papers. That gives the board flexibility to deal with selected issues at a hearing, leaving other hearings to be dealt with on the papers. At the same time it gives the applicant scope to challenge the actions of the board should he feel aggrieved.
In our view, it is preferable in the circumstances to give an aggrieved applicant a further opportunity of being heard by the board rather than leaving him no other avenue for remedy than appeal to the High Court. Having said that, perhaps the noble Lord might like to ponder on what I have said. Equally, I shall read with care the point which he raises. I think there may be something which we ought to look at, although I give no undertaking that I shall necessarily propose any change.
Lord Morton of Shuna: It appears to me that this is a matter in which there is a lack of understanding between the different sides of the Committee. For example, the position may be that someone with a very long list of convictions for crimes of violence who sustains a broken nose will not get an award whether or not he was an innocent victim. There is no point in insisting on a board hearing as to whether he has been the victim in those circumstances. However, I shall certainly study what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 112, line 9, leave out from ("that") to end of the line and insert ("there are exceptional reasons for doing so.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to set the same standard for taking an exceptional course throughout the Bill. I understand that it meets with some approval from the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am content to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 112, line 14, after ("Wales") insert ("or where as part of their determination the Board have certified that in their opinion no prima facie case for an award of compensation was disclosed by an applicant for compensation.").
Page 112, line 18, after ("Scotland") insert ("or where as part of their determination the Board have certified that in their opinion no prima facie case for an award of compensation was disclosed by an application for compensation.").
The noble Lord said: I propose Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 together. The general position under this legislation is that an adverse decision, made without a hearing, can be the subject of an application for a claim to be reconsidered after a hearing. That is referred to in Schedule 6, paragraphs 2(2) and 2(4). If the board denies the claim for the application to be reconsidered after a hearing, then mandamus may lie under paragraph 2(8). If the board adds the magic words in originally rejecting the claim that the claimant has no prima facie case, then the claimant has under paragraph 2(5) no right to apply for the reconsideration of his claim by the board and therefore no right to seek a mandamus. I can read these provisions in no other way and I am entirely confident that that is what they mean.
I suggest it is monstrous that a claimant should be without any remedy in such a case where, for example, a single member of the board, perhaps without any hearing, has been satisfied that there is no case. I have known a fair number of cases in the High Court which have ultimately succeeded in the Court of Appeal, where a single judge of the High Court thought that there was no prima facie case and said so.
What this comes down to is a very serious gap in the protection available to the claimant. Where the board says "No" to a claimant without any hearing at all or indeed says "No" after a hearing on limited issues, then the claimant can apply for the claim to be reconsidered—or for the excluded issues to be reconsidered—after a hearing. That is paragraph 2(2) and 2(4) respectively of Schedule 6. If the board rules against that application—that is for the claim to be reconsidered or the excluded issues to be reconsidered—then the claimant can apply to the High Court in England and Wales for an order of mandamus. He can apply to the Court of Session in Scotland for a direction requiring the board to reconsider the claim after a hearing. That is paragraph 2(8) of Schedule 6 for England and Wales and paragraph 2(9) for Scotland. If the board simply certifies that in its opinion no prima facie case for an award of compensation was disclosed by the claimant, then the claimant is totally remedy-less. He has been denied any hearing by the board and he cannot test the board's opinion that his case is hopeless.
It is no answer to say, as was sought to be said in another place when this point was taken, that the claimant can apply again with fuller reasons. It is no answer because he may get the same answer, that he has no prima facie case. As I say, I know from a good

749
deal of experience of judicial review cases in the Divisional Court, that the Divisional Court can refuse leave on the basis that the case is hopeless. The Court of Appeal can then grant leave and the applicant who was told at first that his case was hopeless, succeeds in the Court of Appeal.
Therefore, this is an important point to which I hope the Lord Advocate will give close thought. The board should not be empowered to deny a hearing simply by saying there is no prima facie case and then leave the citizen without any redress whatever. For these reasons I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I support this amendment. It seems to be an omission from the provisions and it would he a necessary matter to put right.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As the noble Lord opposite has indicated, paragraph 2(5) provides that where,
"the Board have certified that in their opinion no prima facie case… was disclosed by his application"
the claimant is not entitled to make an application For a hearing under paragraph 2.
The purpose of that procedure is to relieve the board of that time consuming and expensive task of reconsidering cases in which there is no case for an award. The noble Lord, Lord Morton, referred to this in an earlier debate.
It is not intended that the procedure would be used except in clear cases and the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will no doubt agree that the board would be very careful in the consideration of these kinds of cases. It must be accepted that like all public bodies the board receives a number of outlandish, if not bizarre, requests for consideration. For example, these may be in the nature of requests for compensation for injuries caused by sinister invisible rays or by ill-disposed beings from foreign planets. That does not mean that the person making the request is not fully persuaded of the justice of the case and is not prepared vigorously to pursue it. In such cases, and in others where there is no hope of a claim succeeding, it seems right to prevent a case from proceeding further with the additional costs and effects on other meritorious cases which would result.
I have to say that in the last resort a person who remains aggrieved by the board's decision can seek judicial review of the decision and would no doubt do so only after receiving good advice that there is a case. There is therefore not a question of there being no remedy, but I think one has to proceed on the bona fides of the board. The noble Lord has already said that one can come back with a further application with better particulars. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am bound to say that I am startled by what has come from the noble and learned Lord, In my experience, I have heard too often about clear cases which are hopeless—decided by conscientious men and judges—only to learn subsequently that what appeared to be clearly hopeless was clearly right. I would be astonished if the noble and learned Lord's experience did not likewise extend to such cases.
750
Of course, I do not doubt that the large majority of cases which are said to be cases which are clear, and where it is said that there is no prima facie case, are cases that are correctly so described. In such a case of course leave to issue a mandamus would no doubt not be granted; but we are concerned with the rare case where the board is wrong and has wrongly said, without a hearing perhaps on the say-so of a single member of the board, that the case is hopeless. I repeat that I would be astonished if the noble and learned Lord has not himself known cases where a single judge has said that and has been proved to be wrong by a Court of Appeal. How much more cogent therefore is this point when a decision may have been made, without a hearing, by a single member of the board?
The noble and learned Lord further says that there is no need to expand the power to make an order of mandamus, as this amendment suggests, to cover this class of case. He says that this class of case would be covered by an application for judicial review. Can he point to any provision in the Bill that demonstrates that to be so? As I read these provisions, it is mandamus or nothing, and on necessary construction of the provisions of this part of Schedule 6 mandamus cannot go to complain about a decision of no prima facie case which is said to be wrong in law or perverse.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I accept, as regards court proceedings, that the noble Lord opposite may be correct in saying that at times a single judge may be wrong. The point I was making in my earlier answer is that refusal of an application is not refusal forever and a day, and the claimant may come back with further and better particulars. In that sense I say that matter is vastly different from a court case.
That is the reason why, as I have indicated, I have said that an application has the possibility of coming back to the board if he feels that he has not given sufficient information but has a good case; but at the end of the day the bizarre cases must have an end, and for that reason I do not feel able to accept this amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: As I understand the answer which the noble and learned Lord has just given it is to acknowledge judicial review in the sense that an application to the High Court would not run. It now appears that the noble Lord was using "judicial review" in the sense of going back again with further supporting reasons to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That I would not call judicial review; I would simply call it going back to the same body, the board, that had said there was no prima facie case in the first instance. If the same body, without a hearing, simply mouths or certifies the magic words, "no prima facie case", again, what remedy has the citizen if the board is wrong? The answer is none; and why should there be no remedy?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not think I accepted that there was no provision which would allow the dissatisfied applicant to seek judicial review. I should have thought that that would lie anyway. I am saying that we do not provide within this Bill a specific right of appeal of the kind which is

751
suggested. For that reason I also made clear the view of the Government.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he might reconsider it. Some of the prima facie cases that would be refused are refused because the board takes a view as to whether it comes within the scheme or not, not because the applicant is necessarily a believer in things coming from space to attack him. However, that type of situation has been reviewed before. I am thinking of the case of Ince, where a police car going to a sounding burglar alarm, goes through a red light. It is that kind of case. No additional facts can be put forward. It is a view whether it is within or without the scheme. It is a pure point of law. It is turned down because there is no prima facie case because the board members in this instance decide wrongly. Speaking for myself, and I should think every other member of the board, we would all say that we are no better and probably a lot worse than judges. We make mistakes. We are human beings, and judges are there to put us right. This is a matter that has to be put right. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would be prepared to have a look at it.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have made clear what our position is here. Indeed the noble Lord has confirmed the very point which I was seeking to make previously. Judicial review lies in cases where the board may be seen to have acted wrongly in saying that a matter is outwith the scheme when it is truly within the scheme. That remedy still lies and for that reason we do not feel it necessary to add an additional provision that would give a general right of appeal.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I rise to my feet again only to appeal to the noble and learned Lord's well known sense of fairness. Since he accepts that there is the class of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, refers, where the board could certify no prima facie case simply because of an error of law, how could that error of law ever be demonstrated if all that the board does is to certify "no prima facie case full stop"? The noble Lord is asserting that a remedy exists and that there would be no material which would allow it to be exercised. The relevant remedy in such a case is surely a mandamus that the case be properly heard and argued.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Obviously as with any proceedings in this Committee I shall look at what has been said. However, I have indicated the present view of the Government.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am much obliged. Perhaps I may seek leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 112, line 28, at end insert ("or that the proceedings are likely to be prejudiced by the determination of a claim.").
The noble Lord said: This is a provision about which I am certainly very worried. The provisions of paragraph 4(1) read:
"The Board may only defer the determination of a claim on the ground that criminal proceedings are current if they"—
that is, the board—
"consider that the proceedings are likely to be material to their determination of the claim".
My noble friend Lord Irvine and I seek to put in the phrase,
"or that the proceedings"—
that is, the criminal proceedings—
"are likely to be prejudiced by the determination of a claim".
This provision appears to have come to light because of a public outcry that arose after the Brighton bombing and before the trial, as a result of that case when the board, after the people were arrested, decided to cease to process the claims until the trial of the accused. The chairman of the board took the view that it might be argued if the board had made awards that that might prejudice the fair conduct of the trial.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice stated publicly that he agreed with that view—or at least he allowed the chairman of the board to state that that was his view. I know from counsel who was acting for one of the accused in the Brighton trial that if the board had continued to make awards that would have been used as part of the argument that was advanced that a fair trial could not take place. That was a very special circumstance, but the noble and learned Lord opposite knows as well as I do that in the criminal courts in Scotland quite frequently it will be suggested to the injured party who is the complainer in an action that the only reason he went to the police was in order to make a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. If the complainer is able to say, "Yes, that is so and I have the money", the jury may well consider that he is an innocent victim, whereas the fact may be that a self-defence defence should be upheld.
I can see very great difficulties indeed if we, the board, are under an obligation to defer determination only on the ground that the criminal proceedings will help us in the determination of the claim and we shall make difficult the determination of the guilt or innocence of accused in criminal trials, which, with all respect to the importance of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, is something far more important and necessary to protect. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am aware that, as the noble Lord opposite has reminded us, the board has followed a practice in the past of not making awards while related criminal proceedings are pending because of the possible effects on its own proceedings or the possibility of prejudice to the criminal proceedings.
We are not persuaded that the second safeguard is necessary in practice, although obviously I shall read what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord has reminded the Committee of the Brighton bombing case, although in that case the decision was taken despite a police statement to the board that the deaths and injuries were a result of a bomb explosion and

753
there was no question in that case that those who suffered were in any way responsible for the crime.
Our view is that in circumstances where there is prima facie evidence of a crime and no suggestion that the victim has contributed to it, then the board should proceed with its determination. In taking this view we are fortified by experience in Northern Ireland, where generally the compensation and criminal processes in Northern Ireland proceed independently of one another. In that comparatively long experience no statutory provision of the kind proposed in the amendment has been found necessary. That experience does not suggest that we need the provision here. I believe that it could result in unnecessary extra delays in settling claims, and for those reasons I am not disposed to accept the amendment.
This is a late hour and again I shall obviously read what has been said. I am aware of the kind of question that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has referred to being asked in a criminal trial. I am bound to say that I do not recollect the answer being given in that form. My recollection is that the witness may have said, "Yes, a claim has been made", but did not expatitate on whether the claim had been dealt with, which would be irrelevant to the material of the trial.
I should have thought that that was a small price to pay for the fact that those who have been injured, or the dependants of those who have died as a result of a violent crime, should await the resolution of the criminal proceedings before the board can proceed to deal with compensation. In certain cases that may be long before those proceedings come to trial. For those reasons, I do not feel disposed to accept the amendment, hut I shall go away and read what has been said.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The noble and learned Lord has had experience for a number of years in the Crown Office. All that I can do is to remind him that so far I have had slightly more experience in that office. There are many cases where the accused persons comprise one group in a fight and the Crown witnesses another. The Crown witnesses and the accused may all have made claims to the compensation hoard. Paragraph 4(1) is asking the hoard to determine guilt and conduct before the jury does so. That seems to us to be entirely wrong. We have not done that up until now, because we have waited for the trial unless there has been an outstanding warrant and the offender has not been caught.
This is a serious matter which has not been properly looked at. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at it seriously.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 112, line 40, after ("or) insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: This is a pure matter of English. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 112, line 42, leave out ("97") and insert ("100").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136, 153 and 155. This is an occasion where the Government's word processor has been unable to count, because when there are references to Clause 97 they should be to Clause 100. As no one else seems to have noticed this, we thought it better to put it right. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 112, line 45, leave out from ("to") to end of line 49 and insert ("clothing and any personal adjuncts arising from the injury to which the claim relates, but personal adjuncts do not include jewellery, watches or rings and compensation shall not be payable under paragraph (b) above for any other loss of or damage to property.").
The noble Lord said: I think that I am intended to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139, which are consequential. The scheme under which the board operates at the moment provides that clothing which a victim of a crime of violence is wearing at the time he is assaulted and which is damaged in that assault is one of the items for which compensation is given.
With the care and interest which the Government obviously have for the well-being of victims of crimes of violence, they intend to deny any compensation for clothing from that scheme. I ask the noble and learned Lord seriously to consider this matter again. Many people have, so to speak, one good suit of clothes and one good coat. An old age pensioner goes out in her good, warm coat on a winter evening and is mugged and the coat is thereafter useless. She is now to be denied compensation for that coat.
We are not talking about a large sum of money. The total cost of the board was rather over £50 million in the year to March 1987. It is rather less than this country considers appropriate to spend on military bands. I have nothing against military bands, they are a good thing, but it shows the level of the costs that we are talking about. It is extremely important especially to the more impoverished victims of crimes of violence. It is a meanness which is unnecessary, and in order to restore the position to what it was under the scheme I move Amendment No. 135.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: It is estimated that the board pays out about £400,000 a year to compensate those who have suffered a loss of, or damage to, their clothing as a result of a crime of violence. While this may be praiseworthy, the cost and administrative effort expended by the board in verifying such claims is considerable. As a result, a significant amount of the board's time and funding is being deflected from the fundamental aim of the scheme, which is to compensate for personal injury or death. Instead it is trying to gauge the value of partly-worn clothing with very little means of checking its age, condition or value. The average payments made are in the region of £15 to £20, which must be little more than the cost of the arrangements for checking the claim and making the payment.

755
The question of the board's continuing to compensate applicants for the loss of, or damage to, clothing was considered by the Interdepartmental Working Party in 1986. This was a working party which included representatives drawn from the staff of the board.
They considered it anomalous, as it indeed is, that a scheme devised to compensate victims for personal injury should pay for the replacement or restoration of their clothing. Clothing may be more personal than some other property but if clothing is covered by the scheme there is not much logic in excluding other uninsured property damaged as a result of crime. Such a scheme would be very generous and very expensive but it would not be a scheme to compensate for personal injury.
The effect of the damage to, or loss of, a victim's personal adjuncts which are relied upon as a physical aid are in a special category. We accept that spectacles, dentures and hearing aids should continue to be covered by the statutory scheme as the articles are so closely connected with the physical faculties of the victim. There is not the same strong case for the board to continue to pay for property such as clothing or other personal property which is not a physical aid.
In these circumstances, despite the noble Lord's eloquent plea, I regret to say that I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may say so, this sounds rather like a proposal to save £400,000 of public money. Having listened to this debate, I very much hope, despite the lateness of the hour, that the noble and learned Lord will look at this argument again. A substantial number of people would probably not make any demand on the scheme for the relatively small cost involved in damage to clothing. But for persons of limited income—as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said old age pensioners who have very limited resources are—this could be quite an important issue. They not only have the shock of the attack, for which in terms of injury they may receive some degree of compensation, but they also have damage to a limited quantity of personal clothing. It seems to me most unfortunate that, as part of an arrangement whereby we are trying to put this whole scheme on a statutory basis, this rather mean-minded approach has been adopted.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I find the argument of the noble and learned Lord rather unsatisfactory. The total administrative expense of the board, which includes every cost, is about 10 per cent. of its total cost. It is not a board that is running away with costs of administration, as is the court system. It is a board for which the administrative cost is very low. It seems a great meanness.
I remind the noble and learned Lord that the victim support groups have raised this as a matter of great importance. Those groups consist of people who are in the front line, because they meet the victims. An interdepartmental working party from the Treasury, the Scottish Office and the Home Office does not necessarily have such close affinity to the victims of
756
crimes of violence. However, in the confident hope that the noble and learned Lord will look again at this proposal, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No.136:
Page 113, line 1, leave out ("97") and insert ("100").
The noble Lord said: This amendment covers a formality and again gets right the numbers of the clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No.137:
Page 113, line 22, after ("was") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: This provision is another example of total meanness. It may sound rather odd that I am speaking from these Benches in favour of meeting the costs of private medicine in certain circumstances. The earlier provision in the existing scheme requires that the costs of private medical care were bound to be met where they were reasonably incurred. We now have the provision that we are to be entitled to meet such costs out of public funds only if the treatment is essential.
The amendment seeks to add the word "reasonably". I quite appreciate that to a lawyer it is a little difficult to interpret the words "reasonably essential", but it seems to me that it is quite wrong to say to someone who has a four-inch scar across his or her face—and there is what must seem an interminable wait of about eight, nine or 10 years for plastic surgery which is only performed for the sake of improving the appearance—that it is not essential to have the scar revised. Of course it is not essential; that person can go on living without having the scar revised. But anyone who takes a reasonable view would say that it was reasonably essential, especially if the person is a young lady who depends to any extent upon her appearance.
In view of the present state of waiting lists—and certainly members of the board are regularly told that in cases where plastic surgery is required to correct noses, for example, and operations are needed to correct injuries to ankles and so on the waiting list will be four or five years—it seems that something more reasonable should be applicable for this type of situation. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The provision as it stands reflects the recommendation of the working party that the board should pay the cost of private medical treatment but only where such treatment is essential and the cost is reasonable. We believe that that is the right approach and that the provision for treatment to be essential is the right test to apply before public funds are disbursed to pay for private medical treatment.
We should not, therefore, wish to see any qualification of the essentiality of treatment, which will be a matter on which the board will need to be satisfied. If the treatment is essential and indispensable I suggest that it cannot be qualified in the way proposed in this amendment. The noble Lord

757
produced an example. I wonder whether in that case he would have found difficulty if the word "essential" only appeared in deciding the case other than in favour of the claimant. I do not know. But I have indicated the Government's view and, in these circumstances, I regret to say that I cannot give the noble Lord any real hope that we shall alter it in the light of what he has just said.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is the noble and learned Lord indicating that in his view, if a lady, the victim of a criminal injury, suffered a scar that required revision and was concerned about her appearance because it was injuring her sense of well-being not to have this plastic surgery privately, the board would be perfectly entitled to regard that treatment as essential, so that the only question would be whether the expense was reasonable?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I have resisted giving an answer. All I am saying is that that would be a matter for the board, in the light of the circumstances which are produced and the arguments placed before it. I am simply saying that we think that the recommendation of the working party in relation to this is correct, and that the board would require to be satisfied that the treatment was essential and the costs reasonable, before it would allow public funds to be disbursed to pay for private medical treatment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think that a number of us are going to have to read Hansard rather carefully tomorrow, because I certainly interpreted the noble and learned Lord's observations to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to indicate that the board would he entitled to authorise payment in the particular case he cited. Did the noble and learned Lord mean that or did he not?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think I made it clear that the test is one of essentiality and reasonableness of the cost. That is what I put and that would be a matter for the board to be satisfied about on the material placed before it. I think perhaps I should resist any blandishment to give an opinion upon any particular case. If I appear to have done so, then perhaps I should make it clear that I do not do so in this debate, other than to say that the Government's view as to the test is quite clear.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I think the noble and learned Lord will find when he looks at Hansard tomorrow that he went rather further than he imagined. I think this is a matter of some importance. It is most unreasonable, no doubt, to keep on asking the noble and learned Lord to consider these matters when there are only a limited number of us in the Committee at the moment. However, I think that this question raises so very many important issues that it requires some careful study.
It seems to me that if a young woman, or a young man, is affected in this way and needs cosmetic surgery of a kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, given the fact that that is consequent upon a serious assault, it is right and wholly reasonable that expenditure of this sort should be met by the board. I very much hope that
758
between now and the Report stage those concerned will look again at this matter, and see whether we can tighten up the language of this clause.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The real trouble is the word "essential"—essential for what? What is it to be essential to—the life of the applicant, the good temper of the applicant, or what? "Essential" is a very difficult word to ask the board to interpret in these circumstances. If you are dealing with plastic surgery, or the ability to breathe properly through one's nose—and these are the types of cases which arise most frequently—it is very difficult to see how "essential" really helps us. It is not essential for the life of anybody that she should have a four-inch scar removed from her face, but it makes a difference. How much of a difference becomes "essential" is the real issue, and it really will not do for Parliament to leave the board with a completely unanswerable question and expect it to make sense of it.
As it is fairly late in the evening, now is not the time to test the opinion of the Committee. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I give an assurance that we will come back on this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 113, line 34, after ("there") insert ("or within the limits of the territorial waters adjacent to Scotland or on, under or above waters to which section 99(1)(e) of this Act applies, or on a ship, aircraft or hovercraft registered in or operating from Scotland:").
The noble Lord said: I speak not so much as a member of the board but as a resident in Scotland. If one considers in the case of a fishing boat setting out from the North-East of Scotland that one fisherman attacks another somewhere between Shetland and Norway, it is apparently the law of England and Wales that is to apply. This seems rather odd. I should be delighted to see an English court trying to deal with the accents of Buchan. However, that is a feature that we probably will not see!
The intention of the amendment is to put to Scotland the things that are Scottish and to leave to England and Wales the things that belong to England and Wales and not to the rest of the world, which seems to be the approach of the draftsman.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having tabled the amendment. There is a government amendment with regard to the waters referred to in Clause 99(2)(e). That in part meets what is proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. However, he goes further and wishes to include the territorial waters adjacent to Scotland and ships, aircraft or hovercraft registered in or operating from Scotland.
As to the law, the jurisdiction of the courts in Scotland extends to the territorial waters adjacent to Scotland and to incidents on or above the waters referred to in Clause 99(2)(e). I should add that a court in Edinburgh probably has as much difficulty in dealing with Buchan accents as does a court further south!

759
Like the noble Lord, I wish to ensure that any incident occurring in any of the waters off the coast of Scotland would be treated by the board as having occurred in Scotland. Therefore, I should be happy to look at the provision again to ensure that it achieves the end that we all seek.
Regarding the proposition to include injuries sustained on a ship, aircraft or hovercraft registered in or operating from Scotland, I think that we are again in broad agreement. However, the amendment cannot be accepted as it stands. A ship registered in Scotland would come within the terms of the Bill. I take the noble Lord's point that, if an incident occurred on a Scottish registered ship, the Bill as presently drafted would assign jurisdiction to the courts of England and Wales. I am happy to undertake to look at the point again to ensure that the appropriate jurisdiction is assigned.
As to aircraft, these are registered centrally for the United Kingdom by the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly there is a central register for hovercraft maintained by the Department of Transport. The proposed amendment could not therefore be given effect in regard to either of these modes of transport. I have to reject that ships operating from Scotland should be included. A Norwegian or Danish ship could be operating from Scotland, for example, ferrying supplies to oilfields. The amendment would allow a member of the Norwegian or Danish crew to make a claim to the board if he was attacked and injured by a fellow crewman. The same would apply to aircraft where international flights may operate from Scotland. If that was so we would have claims from France, Germany, Italy or wherever where there was no connection with this country at all apart from the geographical location of the port or airport of departure or destination. However I take the essential point which the Member was making and I shall undertake to look at this to improve the terminology and to get the correct jurisdiction.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged. It may be that if the view of a Lord Chancellor who is perhaps not wholly inimical to Scotland prevailed the sort of drafting that takes place on lines 34 and 35 would not occur so often. Moreover, I wish also to bring to the noble and learned Lord's attention the fact that in May of this year we were in Aberdeenshire dealing with an accident which had unfortunately occurred off Shetland when a helicopter had fallen into the sea. If that had been a crime, as the Bill is drafted English law would have applied to those fatalities. That must be totally wrong. I am very glad to see that aspect is to be looked at again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 141 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 142.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 141
Page 113, line 36, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Lord said: I have tabled this amendment to leave out paragraph 6 more to get this discussed
760
than to have any opposition to the principal, although I must say that I am very dubious in the sense of not having made up my mind whether or not this is an appropriate course to take. This is a provision that did not appear at all in the scheme which with a variety of amendments through the years has been in existence since 1964.
What is being suggested is that where there is a rape in the course of which a child is conceived and the claimant gives birth to the child and intends to keep it she should receive a flat rate payment of £5,000 in addition to the benefits that she may be entitled to as a result of having been raped.
That may or may not be a good idea. I am far from certain. It is not clear to me, for example, what happens or what is intended to happen if nine months after the rape the claimant gives birth, makes a claim to the board, the board pays out £5,000 and the lady says: "Thank you very much. I shall now place the child for adoption". How long is the intention intended to be for? There is nothing to give us a view on that.
I personally would be extremely unhappy if the board were to enter into any form of demanding proof of the paternity of a child in these circumstances. That would very much increase the distress that victims of rape suffer and I am on the whole unhappy about this whole provision which came out of the blue in the working party's report. Nobody else has suggested it. Somebody in the working party seems to have thought of it. So far as I am aware, this is not a matter on which there has been any public concern and I am totally unaware of how many cases of rape there are in which a child is born and the mother wishes to keep the child. Has the noble and learned Lord any information on that? But at this stage I merely move the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The noble Lord opposite is correct in saying that the provision stems from a recommendation made by the interdepartmental working party. It felt that although the scheme should not in any general way be looked to for the maintenance of the child, it would be appropriate nevertheless for the scheme to recognise in a more limited way the particular difficulties faced by a woman in those circumstances. The scheme itself of course provides entitlement to compensation in respect of the general physical and psychological effects of this heinous crime upon any woman.
The purpose of paragraph 6 is to empower the scheme to make additional specific provision in recognition of the particular emotional and practical consequences which can arise where the mother gives birth to and keeps a child conceived as a result of rape. It is difficult to suggest the number of cases where this is likely to happen. We think it is probably very rare, but we believe it is right to give some financial consideration to a woman in that situation over and above the compensation for the psychological upset.
I take the point the noble Lord made about proof of intention to keep the child. Perhaps we may ponder what he said, but it seemed to the Government that this was a reasonable point made

761
by the interdepartmental working party and that their recommendation was worthy of inclusion in the scheme.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This is another occasion on which there are many Members of your Lordships' Committee whose views would have been of great value on a matter such as this but who, due to the lateness of the hour, cannot be here. I am thinking particularly of those who have social work experience and expertise. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, in the hope that I may return to it at a more convenient hour at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 114, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is merely the deletion of a redundant sub-paragraph. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 143. I have to point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 144.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 114, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I would speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 to 147, 149. 151, 154 and 196. The purpose of these amendments is to insert into Clause 100 a clearer statement of who is entitled to make a claim for compensation and how compensation is restricted for certain categories of claimant. As a result, the main grounds of entitlement will be found in the body of the statute, subsidiary matters being left to the schedules. If noble Lords wish any further explanation, I shall be happy to give it. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The difficulty about these amendments is that if one leaves out sub-paragraph (1) one then has sub-paragraph (2) standing by itself and applying the Fatal Accidents Act to unspecified cases. Then when one comes to a similar amendment in paragraph 8 one gets the same thing applying the Damages (Scotland) Act. I am not at all certain that this really puts the matter clearly from the point of view of the public.
I see what is being aimed at, but I am not sure that it has been achieved. It is very late at night and I think we have reached a stage when I might with all deference suggest that useful discussion has really ceased on this very difficult drafting of a schedule; but I am not opposing the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am grateful for what the noble Lord says. I think actually that the matter will be clear once these amendments are made,
762
but obviously I will bear in mind what he has said. If there is any ambiguity, it should be cured.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147:
Page 114, line 12, leave out ("payable under this paragraph") and insert ("for a dependant of a person who died as a result of a qualifying injury").
Page 114, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
Page 114, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 145 with Amendment No. 143, as I did to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 145 to 147.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 114, line 18, after ("any") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 156. The provision here lays on the board the duty to pay funeral expenses. It is suggested that there should he some restriction and that the expenses should be reasonable. For example, the whole population of California should not be brought to a funeral. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I think that it is right to point out that Amendment No. 196 in the name of my noble friend, if accepted, will correct the omission and transfer the provision of compensation for funeral expenses to Clause 100. The word "reasonable" appears there. In the circumstances, perhaps I may accept the amendment in principle. But, as the noble Lord will see, we endeavour to cure the omission at a later point.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I remind the Committee in calling Amendment No. 149 that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 150.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment 149:
Page 114, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 114, line 24, leave out ("under this paragraph") and insert ("in respect of a qualifying injury").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 152 I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 153:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment 152:
Page 114, line 26, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
("9.—The Board may award compensation to a dependant of a person who died otherwise than as a result of a qualifying injury in respect—

(a) of any loss of earnings (not being prospective earnings) by the deceased; and

(b) of expenses and liabilities incurred by the deceased, as a result of the injury.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The working party recommended that the board should continue to be able to pay compensation to a limited extent to dependants of victims of criminal injury who die from other causes before receiving an award from the board. The wording of paragraph 9 as it stands leaves open the possibility that potential earnings lost by the deceased after his death might be included in the compensation payable to a dependant. That was not intended and the amendment excludes that possibility. It also clarifies a certain ambiguity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 154, I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 155 and 156.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 114, line 30, leave out paragraph 10.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential to Amendment 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment 157:
Page 114, line 35, leave out ("one-and-a-half times") and insert ("twice").
The noble Lord said: Once again this amendment comes at a very late hour. I hope that the usual channels will come to some result in a brief period because I hope to meet certain other engagements.
The scheme under which the board operates at present allows it to pay for loss of earnings up to a level of twice the national average wage. The working party has been influenced by the great generosity of the Treasury and that is now to be reduced to one-and-a-half times the wage. It seems an unnecessary meanness and the amendment seeks to restore the level to that under which the board has operated and continues to operate. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps it is unfortunate that the noble Lord took a tilt at the Treasury. The working party gave clear reasons for its view. Not only victims but the public in general expect those who have suffered from criminal injuries
764
to maintain a reasonable standard of living compared with their position before they were injured. However, the amount payable for loss of earnings under the scheme has always been limited on the basis that those with higher incomes are better able and more likely to have made some provision against loss of income, whether it be by accident, injury or illness. The scheme should not be seen to be paying disproportionately large sums in compensation for loss of earnings to those with high incomes while those who are on low incomes or who are out of work are paid small amounts or nothing at all.
The working party considered that the existing upper limit of twice the gross average industrial wage was too high. They recommended, as indeed had been recommended by a previous working party, that the appropriate limit for the net loss of earnings to be taken into account should be one and a half times the gross average industrial wage. The existing ceiling allows the board to award compensation to a maximum of £440 per week. That is equivalent to a gross salary of about £30,000 a year. Multiplied by one-and-a-half times, that would be equivalent to a gross salary of £23,000 per year, which would leave 70 per cent. of full-time workers unaffected by the change.
It seems to us that that is a reasonable level at which lost earnings should be fully compensated. I think the general public would find it hard to accept that someone earning more than that was likely to suffer hardship through having compensation through loss of earnings so limited. For these reasons I regret to say that I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. It appears to me that there must be many people who earn between one-and-a-half times and twice the average wage, but who can hardly be described as wealthy. Surely they will not be properly compensated if this large gap is opened between their actual lost earnings and the earnings for which they can be compensated.
I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said that the Government are not minded to withdraw this rather mean attempt to save money at the expense of victims of crime. I ask the noble and learned Lord for his assurances on two related matters. First, can he confirm that the power contained in paragraph 11(3) which allows the Secretary of State to vary the sum by which the average wage is multiplied for these purposes will only be exercised so as to increase the statutory multiplier or does he say that it may be used to reduce that multiplier below one and a half?
Secondly, can he assure us that the power in paragraph 11(3) to specify the average wage from time to time will be regularly—I emphasise "regularly"—exercised by the Secretary of State so that the maximum compensation which in this niggardly way is to be reduced in practice from twice to one-and-a-half times does not become eroded by inflation?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Having heard the noble and learned Lord's argument, I find it difficult to accept. The only real comment from the public about the inadequacies of the board's actions came in respect of

765
those, and certainly not by those, who were injured at Brighton. In general I would not consider that the compensation would be below either level, either the one-and-a-half times or the twice times level.
I am very disappointed in the Government's attitude. I have not noticed a desire among the general public for parsimony in dealing with victims of violence. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I may have to return to it at a later stage. Unfortunately, I cannot return to anything else tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 114, line 47, leave out ("payable under paragraph 5, 7, 8 or 9 above") and insert (", other than compensation for rape under paragraph 6 above or compensation in respect of funeral expenses.").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments are consequential upon earlier amendments. The reference to paragraph 7 has been removed because compensation will not now be payable under that paragraph. It is therefore preferable to specify two instances where the board will not reduce the award by the value of the benefits set out in paragraphs 12 and 13. Those are instances where compensation is paid for funeral expenses or in relation to a child born as the result of rape. In saying this, I should point out that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 163. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I really hope that at some stage we shall get some guidance as to what is actually going to happen this evening. I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has had to leave us, given his expertise in this matter. It seems to me rather unfortunate that we are being placed in a position where one person who has a very substantial expertise has now had to leave us. Also there is the fact that we are now discussing some very sensitive issues involving many people who are the victims of violence. It does not seem to me that we are behaving in the most appropriate manner. Therefore, I very much hope that we are going to adjourn soon and come back to this on Monday.
Lord Denham: The difficulty is that there is a finite amount of time in each Session. We have already spent a great deal of time over this Bill and if we are going to have this measure, we must be prepared to sit late at night; otherwise the programme of any government will not get through this House. I am perfectly prepared to agree to adjourn at any time provided I have a guarantee that we get through the Bill in the time that has been allotted.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Obviously I am not in a position to enter into any form of agreement at this moment. I heard what the noble Lord said. We are told, and the noble Lord will confirm it, that there is a tradition in this House that we do not sit late on Thursday evenings, but that is what we are now doing. We have certainly gone through a very substantial number of amendments and nobody could possibly suggest that there has been any time-wasting. I hope that we may reflect on this matter
766
outside this Chamber. Certainly my colleagues and I have done nothing to delay the progress on this Bill. We have regarded many features of the Bill as nonpartisan matters. We heard what the noble Lord said and without entering into any form of bargaining, as I certainly could not do that this evening, I hope that he will also listen to what we have said and take appropriate action.
Lord Denham: The suggestion is that if we reach the end of Schedule 6, which will not take long, that will leave us a reasonable amount of what we had hoped to do tonight to finish in reasonable time on Monday.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 115, line 10, after ("benefits") insert ("including any return of premiums)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 115, line 12, after first ("arrangements") insert ("means").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 115, line 13, after ("for") insert ("wholly or partly").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to be taken with Amendment No. 164 and I therefore propose to speak to both amendments. The two amendments make a simple point. The Bill rightly recognises that entitlements arising from private insurance and pension arrangements—that is, entitlements for which the victim has paid—should not be taken into account as reducing the compensation payable under the scheme. That is contained in paragraphs 12(2)(c) and 13(1). There is no such exemption if the payment does not come entirely from the victim's household. That must obviously exclude any arrangements to which an employer has contributed, no matter how small the contribution may be.
The fact is that a person receives a total package of remuneration and benefits from his employer, and in substance the employer's contribution is a concealed remuneration. If the employer is making contributions to a pension or insurance scheme, the chances are that his employees will receive that much less in their pay packets, and there is no merit in discriminating against them for the purposes of criminal injuries compensation by treating them less favourably than, say, the self employed. That is the reasoning behind both amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 161.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The present scheme allows pension rights and insurance benefits to be disregarded only where they accrued solely as the result of payments by the victim or a dependant. We

767
believe that the restriction is right and that the wording of the paragraphs achieves the intended result.
The inclusion of the words which this amendment suggests in both instances appears to allow the claimant or his dependant a greater opportunity to avoid a reduction being made by the board in respect of his private insurance or pension arrangements. We would not regard it as acceptable to allow for the reduction to be avoided where part (although perhaps a very large proportion) of the contributions to the pension or insurance had been made by some third party other than the injured person or his spouse, or someone living with him as his spouse subject to the limitations of sub-paragraph (2)(c), or in the case of an injured person under the age of 18, the parent or guardian.
There is, however, a question of joint subscription between the injured party and his spouse where the benefits exclusion would apply. I am not convinced that an amendment is necessary there. I do not think that the noble Lord touched upon this. However, I shall certainly read what the noble Lord said on the point to which I have just alluded to see whether there is anything in the matter. For the moment I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall be interested to read whether the noble and learned Lord will say in answer to my question that the provisions in their amended form, without the words "wholly or partly" inserted in place of "for", would have the effect of excluding any arrangements to which an employer has contributed, no matter how small the employer's contribution may be. If he accepts that that is the consequence of the provisions as they stand, does he think it is just that that should be the position?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I made clear what the scheme at present has been. It is quite clear that the scheme allows only pension rights or insurance benefits to be disregarded where they accrued solely as a result of payments by the victim or a dependant. That would cover the payments to which the noble Lord has just referred. However, I shall look at this again in the light of what the noble Lord has said, although I cannot give any undertaking that we are persuaded by that argument.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am content that the noble and learned Lord will simply say, as he has done, without giving any undertakings whatever, that at least he will consider the specific point that I have raised.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I could be clear on this point. The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to say that he will reflect on a remarkably large number of issues between now and Report stage. Presumably we shall have the benefit of those views through correspondence before Report stage so that we can then consider ourselves whether it is appropriate for us to take any further action.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I do not think that I can say that. I made quite clear in the other case that I would reflect upon what was said, and that for the present the Government's view was as stated by me at this Box. That remains the case so far as the present amendment is concerned. However, I shall look at what has been said.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If we have to consider whether we shall put amendments down before Report stage it is obviously necessary to know whether the reflections of the noble and learned Lord will lead to any action on the part of the Government.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 115, line 36, leave out ("under paragraph 5.7.8 or 9 above") and insert (". other than compensation for rape under paragraph 6 above or compensation in respect of funeral expenses.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 164:
Page 116, line 2, after ("for") insert ("wholly or partly").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 161, I spoke to Amendment No. 164. What I therefore said in moving Amendment No. 161 applies to Amendment No. 164, but the position in relation to it is therefore not moved.
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 116, line 15, leave out ("and gratuities").
The noble Lord said: This is an important point and I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say about it. The effect of this amendment is that gratuities ought not to be included in the pension rights which go to reduce the compensation payable. If one asks why, the answer is plain. To do so can only discourage employers and others from making gratuitous extra payments. But surely it is in the public interest to encourage such payments to victims of crime.
I ask rhetorically, why should voluntary payments of this kind be discouraged? A good employer may want to make such payments. A good employer should be encouraged to do so. By this provision he is disabled from topping up the statutory compensation. All that he can do is to transfer some of the burden from the board to himself. For my part, I cannot see on any view how this can be regarded as sound policy and I should like to be told how it can be so regarded. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: The inclusion of gratuities arising from a person's employment reflects the position of the present non-statutory scheme. It was supported by the interdepartmental working party. They considered that benefits provided by an employer as a result of the applicant's injury, including gratuities, should properly lead to a corresponding reduction in the amount of award paid by the board. I concede that this provision may act as a disincentive to some employers who wish to act benevolently towards employees injured by criminal activity. Nevertheless it remains the case that in determining an applicant's loss of income it is relevant and reasonable for the board to take account of all payments which accrue from the applicant's employment. If gratuities were to be excluded, it would be very difficult for the board to have to differentiate between those payments from employers which were totally gratuitous and those which resulted from some legal or moral obligation. We have concluded that in the absence of a workable solution and to avoid the potential for abuse, there is only one practical means of dealing with gratuities paid by employers. That is to regard all such payments as benefits arising out of employment which should be taken into account by the board when assessing compensation.
It is for these reasons that I can give no comfort to the noble Lord opposite and I cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at this matter again. I take his point that it is part of the present scheme. He is quite right. I know that because I am a director of a public company which had to consider exactly this issue where an employee was murdered and we had to consider what action to take to help the widow.
What worries me is that it seems most unfortunate to take any form of action to discourage, by applying these provisions, a conscientious employer who wishes to give reassurance to a widow, or to help her because of her husband's record of service to the company. I do not wish to say anything indiscreet, but we eventually discovered that by using subterfuge it was possible to take certain action which led to the widow not losing any of the benefits she secured from the company. It is sensible to look at this matter again rather than to rely upon subterfuge. I recognise that genuine problems are involved. I do not underestimate them. Given the fact that in certain circumstances it is possible to get round that provision it might be sensible to have another look at it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I must confess that I am distinctly unimpressed by the form of argument which says that because the provision is in the present scheme it is good and argument cannot be taken further in this place.
The Government do not hesistate to change a scheme when they think it wrong. Why should we assume that the scheme is right in any respect merely
770
because the Government have not sought to change it? We should be concerned to debate these matters on their merits.
It has been plainly right that an employer should not be discouraged from making voluntary payments of a kind which would be socially approved. I cannot think that there is any real, practical difficulty in distinguishing what is purely gratuitous from what is a legal obligation. As for moral obligation, I should regard that as gratuitous. The board would have little difficulty in investigating the facts and identifying what is truly gratuitous. I repeat my point. I see no reason why the good employer should be discouraged, or indeed disabled, from topping up the statutory compensation.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider the merits of the argument regardless of what the scheme happens to be at present, and will further consider whether the practical difficulties that he adumbrates are real obstacles or no more than the practical difficulties that every judicial body encounters in applying tests. I do not think the test of whether something is gratuitous is difficult to apply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 116, line 17, leave out ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 116, line 26, leave out ("become entitled to") and insert ("received").
The noble Lord said: This amendment goes to Schedule 6(14). It leaves out the words "become entitled to" and inserts in their place the word "received". Paragraph 14 has as it object to avoid double compensation by providing that the payment made under the scheme is to be reduced by the amount of any damages or compensation order obtained in any civil or criminal proceedings.
The short and cogent point of this amendment is that it is one thing to become entitled to something and another to obtain it. Just because the victim sues the offender, or someone vicariously liable for him, and obtains a compromise of the action or a judgment in his favour, there is no guarantee that he will receive the full sum due, or indeed any sum. That point is obviously even more cogent in the case of a compensation order made by a criminal court.
The mandatory language of paragraph 14 is such that the board has no option but to reduce compensation, even in a case where it has already become clear that the entitlement to damages will be worthless. That cannot be just, therefore the idea of the amendment is that the reduction of compensation should be dependent upon receipt of the sums concerned.
Simply for the sake of the record, if the noble and learned Lord sees force in that and is minded to give serious thought to a change along these lines I would simply observe that there would then be a consequential amendment to Clause 104(6)(b). I shall simply read in what I think it ought to be and leave it there. It would be at page 78, line 45,
"Leave out ('such payment') and insert ('payment which had it been received before the making of the award would under any provision contained in Schedule 6 to this Act have led to any such reduction')".
I simply say that for the sake of completeness. I think there is a good deal to be said for this amendment, but I just mention for the sake of completeness that it would have to be carried into that consequential amendment. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I recognise the force of the point that the noble Lord has put forward. At an earlier stage of this legislation before the general election there had been a government amendment to cover the circumstances to which the noble Lord alluded which was omitted in error from the current Bill. We would wish to consider this amendment with a view to improving the wording and look at any consequences that may have on the remaining provisions of the Bill. I hope with that undertaking that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: On that basis I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 116, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 117 and insert—
("15—

(a) a deceased person has become entitled to compensation under this Part of this Act: and

(b) a claim for such compensation for the same injury is made by one of his dependants,

the dependant's compensation shall be reduced by the amount of the deceased's compensation: and proportionate reductions shall be made if claims are made by two or more dependants.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment considerably simplifies the complicated wording of the existing paragraph 15 in relation to the reduction of compensation on account of successive claims relating to the same injury. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 117, line 32, leave out second ("of") and insert ("for").
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps to assist the noble Lord let me say that I would accept this amendment if he moved it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: When I saw the nature of this amendment I anticipated that the noble and learned Lord might be about to say that, and therefore I was ready to move it to be blown off course if I was
772
wrong. Happily I have not been blown off course. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 117, line 47, leave out ("the award") and insert ("payment").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides for rules to be made relating to the date of entitlement to payment of an award instead of entitlement to the award, thereby correcting an inaccuracy in the wording. The date is significant because if the person who sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it before becoming entitled to payment, his dependants will be able to make an application for compensation. If he dies otherwise than as a result of the injury and after becoming entitled to payment, they will not. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I raise one question which is not directly related to this amendment, if I may reassure the noble and learned Lord. As the noble Earl and the government Chief Whip are with us let me say this in terms of the future progress of the Bill. I have been asked by my noble friends to indicate that they have understood through the usual channels that there is to be some suggestion of a discussion of some kind in relation to the debates we had earlier in the Committee stage dealing with extradition.
All that I have been asked to say is that, given the fact that there is a gap of only 13 days between next Tuesday, when we are due to finish the Committee stage of this Bill, and Monday fortnight, when we are supposed to take up the Report stage of the Bill, we very much hope that any such meeting will be arranged as early as possible. I am not asking for a response immediately; I am simply asking for the point to be noted so that this matter can be considered in good time, given the pressure of time that we shall all be experiencing.
Lord Denham: Certainly my noble friends and I will take good note of what the noble Lord says.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that we have arrived at the point which, through rather devious channels, we agreed to reach. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Swanage Yacht Haven Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  SECURITY SERVICE: ALLEGATION BY MR. ALLASON
  SECURITY SERVICE: ALLEGATION BY MR. ALLASON
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES: CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES: CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG: RESETTLEMENT
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG: RESETTLEMENT
  BULGARIAN BONDS: REPURCHASE
  BULGARIAN BONDS: REPURCHASE
  RUSSIAN BONDS: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
  RUSSIAN BONDS: SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
  PATENT OFFICE
  PATENT OFFICE
  TAXI LICENCES: DoT CIRCULAR 3/85
  TAXI LICENCES: DoT CIRCULAR 3/85