Sitting of 15 December 1988

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read the Second time on Tuesday 20 December.
CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time on Tuesday 20 December.
AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 December.
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL: AND NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL
Ordered,
That the Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill have leave to visit and inspect the sites of the proposed works at Immingham and North Killingholme, in the county of Humberside, and the physical hydraulic model of the proposed Immingham works constructed at Southall by the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visits and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Abortion
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests were held in 1988 on babies born alive following abortions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am not aware of any. Such information is not collected centrally.
    Mrs. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give his reasons for failing to hold an inquest into the death of the Carlisle baby, who, in July 1987, was delivered alive in the city general hospital Carlisle after 21 weeks' gestation hut died, having struggled for three hours to live?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. My right hon. Friend felt that there was no compelling reason to hold an inquest. In reaching that conclusion he had a number of considerations in mind—that this was a bona fide and lawful abortion; the reasons for carrying it out were compelling; the foetus was incapable of surviving; and it was desirable to spare the mother further distress.
    Mr. Alton: How can the Minister say that, when the ground given for abortion was disability—a non-recurring possible skin complaint that was not life-threatening? Did he take into account the absence of resuscitation equipment in the hospital when the abortion took place? How does that square with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which says that a child may not be aborted if it is capable of being born alive? This child struggled for life for three hours before being put in a black sack and incinerated.
    Mr. Hogg: It is desirable to avoid emotive language in these painful subjects. Ministers gave the case careful consideration and came to the conclusions that I have outlined. I believe that they were right.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1976 the Select Committee on Abortion recommended that no abortion should be carried out on a baby of 20 weeks' or more gestation unless resuscitation equipment and trained staff are available? Is he further aware that resuscitation equipment was available in the hospital for the Carlisle baby but that it was not used because it was in another building? Is that not of itself sufficient reason to order an inquest? Can an inquest be ordered to show the nation that regulations passed by the Department of Health and accepted by the hospital service were flagrantly broken? Is it not high time that we ended disgraceful happenings of this kind?
    Mr. Hogg: I am conscious of the strong feelings that a number of hon. Members most particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—have on this subject. This matter was given careful consideration by Ministers, including my right hon. Friend—
    Sir Bernard Braine: The law was broken.
    Mr. Hogg: The conclusion at which we arrived was the one that I have outlined to the House, and it would be wrong to depart from it now.
    Mr. McAvoy: On what ground did the Home Secretary decide that there should be no inquest? This abortion contravened the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, section 1(1)(b) of the Abortion Act and, against all requirements laid down by the Department of Health, no resuscitation equipment was available for this child. Given all those facts, surely this case should be investigated.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has expressed most clearly. I do not accept that there was a breach of the 1929 Act. The Ministers who examined the case did so carefully, realising that many hon. Members felt strongly about it, but the conclusion that I have outlined to the House is the right conclusion.

    Cruelty to Children
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any action to increase the penalties available to the courts for the offence of cruelty to children.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The maximum penalty for cruelty to children has already been increased from two to 10 years' imprisonment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides this higher penalty for offences committed since 29 September 1988.
    Mr. Coombs: I welcome the measure, especially in view of recently reported appalling cases of child cruelty. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case, as put forward by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, for intensifying prison treatment of people convicted of offences against children, to ensure that such offences do not occur when they leave prison?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to learn that much of that work already goes on at Her Majesty's prison Grendon Underwood.
    Mr. Loyden: What action does the Minister intend to take against the Secretary of State for Social Security for the crimes committed against the children of this country by freezing child benefit for two years in succession?
    Mr. Patten: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wilshire: Is my hon. Friend willing to reconsider the matter? Will he consider drawing a distinction between child cruelty within families, when deterrence is not necessarily the most significant factor, and individuals and organisations who systematically and deliberately organise child abuse? Will he take stronger action against groups such as the Children of God and practitioners of Satanism for whom the most severe punishment is not necessarily adequate?
    Mr. Patten: I know about my hon. Friend's strong feelings about these issues. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 tightens the law in favour of children in several ways, not only that which I have already described but, for example, by making the possession of indecent photographs a criminal offence. It also introduces other provisions such as an appeal by my right hon. and learned Friend the
    1068
    Attorney-General against allegedly over-lenient sentences. It represents a formidable package which has received an all-party welcome.
    Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more varied penalties for cruelty to children? What does he think of the NSPCC's recent suggestion that a child should not be punished for the evil that a parent might have done to it? Does he agree that there is a case for removing child abusers, rather than innocent children, from the home?
    Mr. Patten: No one wants any child to be punished in any way because of the faults of anyone else.
    Mr. Hind: In the light of the recent case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), when will my hon. Friend bring into operation those clauses in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 dealing with child pornography and allowing children to give evidence by way of video link?
    Mr. Patten: We have already introduced a provision concerning the possession of indecent photographs. That has been an offence since 28 September this year. On 5 January 1989 we shall give powers to the courts to receive video evidence by children.

    Broadwater Farm (Incident)
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to respond to the second report from Lord Gifford QC into the circumstances that led to the convictions of Mr. Silcott, Mr. Braithwaite and Mr. Raghip arising out of the incidents at Broadwater farm in 1985; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Lord Gifford has written to me enclosing a copy of his report. This was an entirely unofficial exercise in which, with my right hon. Friend's approval, the Metropolitan police declined to take part.
    Mr. Grant: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the evidence on which the Broadwater farm three were convicted and on which their petition for leave to appeal was rejected, which is of confessions only, was obtained without undue duress, without unfair treatment, and under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Have inquiries been made into the evidence that was obtained? If inquiries have not been made, will he make them now?
    Mr. Hogg: The three men named in the question were convicted after a jury trial. That conviction was upheld in the Court of Appeal earlier this week. In those circumstances, I believe that most fair-minded people should accept that those men are guilty as charged.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend join in congratulating those Metropolitan police officers who were recently awarded bravery awards for their heroic conduct during the Broadwater farm riots in 1987?
    Mr. Hogg: The Metropolitan police behaved with great gallantry, and they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his words.
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not contest the idea that legal procedures, as now constituted, were scrupulously

    1069
    followed in this case, but will the Under-Secretary comment on the increasing disquiet that underlies this case, of men and women being convicted on confessions alone? There is growing concern that that should not be the sole reason for a conviction. Is the Department prepared to study that matter?
    Mr. Hogg: These matters are for the courts. The right hon. Gentleman would do his reputation, and that of his party, considerable good if he stood by the verdict of a jury when it is upheld in the Court of Appeal. Simply to try to go around the back door in such cases is not respectable.

    Child Destruction
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence for child destruction under the Infant Life (Preservation Act) 1929 for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been only one conviction for child destruction in the past 10 years. The sentence was life imprisonment.
    Mr. Amess: Following that answer, does my hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members are not satisfied that the intent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is being complied with? Does he further recognise that—with the advances in medical science meaning that the stage at which a baby is capable of being born alive is reducing all the time—the effectiveness of this Act needs to be reviewed urgently?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend puts his point very firmly. The 1929 Act provides that at 28 weeks of development, there is a rebuttable presumption that the foetus is capable of survival. There is quite clear and compelling evidence that the rebuttable presumption should arise not at 28 weeks, but at 24 weeks, but the House may feel that this matter could be best tackled by private Member's legislation.
    Mr. Ashton: While there has been one case of child destruction in the past 10 years, is it not a fact that, before we had the Abortion Act 1967, there was an average of 65 mother destructions each year? Women went to back-street abortionists, ran into trouble, had to be rushed into hospital and subsequently died. Will the Under-Secretary compare those figures with those of child destruction?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly shall.
    Mr. Marlow: Is there not something wrong with a society where healthy human life can be destroyed purely because it is socially inconvenient? Is that not happening increasingly these days? Is it not against the law and is it not time that the Government did something about it?
    Mr. Hogg: The 1929 Act is quite plain in its effect. The question really is about where the rebuttable presumption should arise. At the moment it arises at 28 weeks. There is good reason to suppose that it should arise at 24 weeks. It is a matter that causes the House much distress and would probably be best dealt with by private Member's legislation.

    Forensic Science Service
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to increase the level of service provided to police forces by the forensic science service.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We plan to recruit 18 additional scientific staff to the Home Office forensic science service in 1989–90 and a further 10 additional staff in 1990–91.
    Mr. Cohen: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in 1980 there were 445 staff in the forensic science service, yet last year there were only 437, despite the fact that reported crime in that period went through the roof? Are not many suspected criminals getting away with their crimes because the service cannot cope? Did not an expert witness to the Select Committee on Home Affairs say that morale in the service is bloody awful? When will the Secretary of State do something about it and put money and manpower into the service?
    Mr. Hurd: Investment in the forensic science service has increased from 0·3 million to £13·75 million during our term of office. That is a real increase of 21 per cent. The hon. Gentleman's figures for staffing are slightly wrong. Staffing levels are broadly constant, but the workload—the number of exhibits going to the service—has increased substantially. I await the Select Committee's conclusion on the matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a long period of discussion and consultation in the service about grading and complementing. The new structure has been introduced and promotions are being made to the new grades. Morale should improve because the period of uncertainty is over.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware of the longstanding anxiety that the forensic science service is too closely intertwined with the police? Does he accept that what is required is an improved independent forensic science service that is available equally to the police and to defendants?
    Mr. Hurd: I am aware of that argument, but I do not regard it as a priority. Inevitably, the forensic science service and the police are intertwined. They should be. My priority is to ensure that the service is organised in such a way as to give proper priority to those crimes which the police believe to be most important.
    Mr. Corbett: May I give a modest welcome to the increase in staffing in the forensic science service? None the less,. will the Home Secretary confirm that last year the management consultants, Touche Ross, recommended an immediate increase in staff of 27 to deal with the extra workload and with the introduction of DNA genetic fingerprinting? Given that the new staff will not he in place until next year or even the following year, as well as the fast rise in violent and sex crimes, the Home Secretary's complacency is astounding.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman must have drafted his supplementary question before he heard my answer to the main question. There have been many reports and discussions in Committees. The forensic science service is just emerging from the period of discussion. Anyone who visits the six laboratories—no doubt the hon. Gentleman has visited at least one of them—will be impressed by the

    1071
    way in which they are grappling with DNA and the workload and trying to perform to the best of their ability. I am anxious that the structure and gradings should be such that they can do that.

    Rural Areas (Violence)
    Mr. Temple-Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is considering to reduce violence in rural areas.
    Mr. Hurd: We have strengthened the police, tightened the law on under-age drinking, reminded the justices of their powers to prevent disorderly drinking, encouraged the swift hearing of cases of this kind and made it an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason. We are preparing further guidance to local services.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend will be only too well aware of the relative increase in violent crime in rural areas as opposed to their metropolitan counterparts. Will he consider taking action, or tell the House what action he is taking, in two areas: first, the Friday and Saturday evening drinking sessions that involve the young and the under-aged; and, secondly, police manpower? On the latter point, knowing that my right hon. Friend is a charitable man, may I ask him to respond generously to the application by West Mercia police for 40 additional police posts in 1989?
    Mr. Hurd: Those are two pertinent questions. On the first one, the Licensing Act 1988 toughened the law against illegal under-age drinking. We have reminded the justices and the police of the powers available under existing laws—for example, to revoke in mid-course the licences of disorderly pubs. I hope that, as a result, the sort of incidents to which my hon. Friend refers will decline.
    Rural forces have benefited from the substantial increases in police manpower, with 8,400 more police officers and civilians working with the police in non-metropolitan forces. I hope fairly soon to announce the allocation of the 1,100 additional police officers which I have already said will be the total for next year, and the West Mercia application is well in my mind. After that there will be a further substantial programme of increases.
    Mr. Maclennan: How many police authorities are seeking increases in the manpower of their forces? By how much will the right hon. Gentleman's proposed increase fall short of what is being sought?
    Mr. Hurd: Most of them are seeking increases, I believe. I am not, of course, responsible for figures in Scotland, but in England and Wales, most are doing so. I have 1,100 places to allocate for next year alone, which is a record on top of a record. Of that, 300 will go to the Metropolitan police and 800 to the provincial forces in England and Wales. Although that total will be a record on top of a record and although it will be a greater increase in real terms than any other public service is receiving, it will not, of course, meet all demands.
    Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the experiment in Bournemouth on the introduction of video surveillance equipment in deterring
    1072
    miscreants and identifying criminals? Is he prepared to consider extending those experiments elsewhere, including my own constituency of Torbay?
    Mr. Hurd: It is not for the Home Office to decide; it is a matter for local chief officers to decide, with their local authorities where necessary. I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. Not only in football grounds has such apparatus has been useful.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does not the Home Secretary think that there is something incompatible between the complacency of his answers and his own statistics, which show that violent crime has increased by 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. on the past two sets of figures that he produced—a record on a record? That is not conducive to the smugness that he has displayed this afternoon.
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has the failing that he is always rather anxious to exaggerate the bad news and to explain away the good news. The good news yesterday was that there was a substantial reduction in the total of recorded crime and, in particular, a sharp reduction in the number of burglaries—a crime to which Opposition Members constantly drew my attention when the figures were becoming worse, but on which they are silent when the figures improve. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that there was a sharp rise in the reported level of violent crime last year and continuing this year, but that as the quarters of this year have proceeded, that rise is levelling out.
    Mr. Key: As we approach the winter solstice, will my right hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the Public Order Act 1986? Is he aware that there is no desire or intention on the part of the communities in Wiltshire and elsewhere to witness confrontation between summer hippies and the resident population? Will he do all that he can to encourage those who seek trouble at the summer solstice to stay away?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I regard him as the joint author of the clause in the Public Order Act that is called the "Hippy clause". I am glad that it has had a good effect in his county and elsewhere. The advice that he has given is sound.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom after 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I have asked the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland for its views on the introduction of national identity cards and I am awaiting its response. We are also studying the recent recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Many people carry proof of identity in various forms, but it would be a different and substantial step to impose a univeral compulsory system with corresponding police powers.
    Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State seems to be hazy and vague about the Government's proposals. Does he accept that many people would regard the introduction of compulsory ID cards—or even pressure to carry them on a voluntary basis—as an intrusion into civil liberties and

    1073
    that they would deeply resent it? Will he take this opportunity to state categorically that there will be no requirement to carry ID cards in this country?
    Mr. Hurd: I simply repeat my original answer, which met the hon. Gentleman's point. An increasing number of people carry proof of identity in various forms as a matter of convenience, but it would be a different matter to impose a universal compulsory system with corresponding police powers.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who see considerable merit in identity cards would favour the Government initially facilitating the carrying of such cards on a voluntary basis, as once they had been used, they would become acceptable to the public?
    Mr. Hurd: I note that observation, and it is certainly a possible way forward. I think that it would be sensible to await the considered view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, for which I have asked, because in the past the police have been reluctant to advocate a compulsory system, believing that it would not really be worth while. We need to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend, as well as the kind of documents that people will be carrying across Europe after 1992, but as I said—and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in July—we are not satisfied that the case has been made out for a compulsory system.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Home Secretary understand that some of us have a sneaking sympathy for the principle of identity cards, but that that is outweighed by our concern about the erosion of civil liberties that has taken place over the past few years? Does not the Home Secretary feel a twinge of conscience at some of the actions brought in the courts, at the complaints that he receives as a Member of Parliament and at the representations made by Back Benchers about the treatment of our constituents? Does he not understand that that is why we shall have to oppose the introduction of identity cards even though we may have some sympathy with the principle?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is getting involved in a very convoluted argument. I do not accept his view and I do not recall such cases. During the previous Parliament we approved a system for receiving and dealing with complaints against the police under independent supervision, and I believe that it is working well.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all party Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended in its report a voluntary identity card for civil liberty reasons, because such a card will grant ease of travel within the European Community and will mean that the less secure British visitor's passport can be replaced by a better quality document that will be more widely accepted?
    Mr. Hurd: I understand that that is the gist of the Select Committee's report. As I said in my original answer, I believe that the case for a voluntary system post-1992 needs studying.
    The question of football hooliganism often arises in this context. The football clubs need to keep out of their grounds people who may not have been convicted of anything but whom they know to be troublemakers. The
    1074
    scheme in the proposed Bill will enable them to do that, but a national identity card scheme, however draconian, would be no help with that problem.

    Carlisle Report (Resource Implications)
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet officers of the National Association of Probation Officers to discuss the resource implications of the Carlisle report.
    Mr. John Patten: We are considering the Carlisle report and look forward to receiving comments from the National Association of Probation Officers among many others. But it would be premature to make the assumptions which would be needed for a discussion of resource implications at the moment.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that the Carlisle report stressed the value and effectiveness of the work of the probation service? When will the Government recognise that probation care is often far more effective than imprisonment and allocate proper resources to the probation and after-care service?
    Mr. Patten: The probation service—among many public services—has enjoyed a record improvement in its resources since 1979. Its cash resources have been increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms, and its manpower has increased by one third. We look forward to the co-operation of the probation service, both in implementing any changes that occur as a result of the recommendations of the Carlisle committee and in putting into action the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for punishment in the community.
    Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that one aspect of the Carlisle report is bound to cause grave disquiet? It is proposed to divorce the responsibilities of the Parole Board—as a separate body—from the Home Secretary's decisions. Does the Minister have a view on that?
    Mr. Patten: Thus far, we are still consulting. Clearly, it would be a major step for an executive body to be set up over which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had no control. My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the strong public concern that those who commit serious and violent crime should stay in prison for a very long time.
    Mr. Sheerman: May we have a straighter answer about the Government's attitude to the Carlisle report? Is the Minister discontented with that report because it has missed the opportunity to cut overcrowding in our prisons at a stroke by going for automatic parole after one third of a sentence has been served—a step which would reduce the prison population by 8,000 and solve many of the problems in our overcrowded prisons?
    Mr. Patten: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my noble Friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and others for the hard work that they put into their excellent report. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for observations from those who are interested by the end of March. This is a fundamental and important issue which deserves full consultation and discussion rather than ad hoc comments from the Dispatch Box before such a full consultation.
    Mr. Lawrence: When my hon. Friend considers those matters, will he take into consideration that there is much dissatisfaction with the tendency to increase administrative release and to thwart the judiciary's wishes to sentence people to certain lengths of imprisonment?
    Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the discontent about that trend not only among the higher judiciary and others but in society at large.

    Broadcasting White Paper
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government's White Paper, Cm. 517.
    Mr. Renton: We are in regular contact with representative organisations, such as the ITV Association, the Association of Independent Radio Contractors and the Cable Television Association, all of whom represent Scottish interests. Among other contacts this year, I have visited Scottish Television and Radio Clyde, and discussed Gaelic broadcasting with Comunn na Gaidhlig. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Sillars: Perfectly forgivable. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Sillars: The Minister can relax; I shall address him in English.
    Is the Minister aware from his conversations in Scotland of the anxiety that exists over the auctioning of the licences at the end of the day? Is he further aware that the Peacock committee was divided on that, and that the majority which went for auctioning nevertheless said that the licensing authority should be able to accept a lower tender if it thought that that was in the best interests of the area to be served? Before he reaches the definitive point of legislation, will he take that on board, particularly in relation to—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please take his seat?
    Mr. Sillars: Will the Minister take that point on board, particularly in relation to Scotland where quality and commitment to national broadcasting are important?
    Mr. Renton: I stress that it will be necessary for all those who apply for franchises under Channel 3, the regional channel, first to satisfy the Independent Television Commission of their ability to cross quality hurdles to show programmes of quality and of regional origin. We are in the consultative period on the White Paper on broadcasting and it was in that context that the other day, for example, I met the Independent Television Association, which has already raised many points with me which we shall be considering further.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Since the SNP is now in favour of Scotland in Europe, would it be helpful if that party were to make it abundantly clear whether, given the legislation for which it voted, it is in favour of the sale of STV to French, Italian or Greek companies as proposed in the legislation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the question. The question should be to the Minister.
    Mr. Renton: That will be one of the many difficult questions that the new Independent Television Commission will have to study when it comes into being.
    Mr. Buchan: I presume that the organisation that the hon. Gentleman discussed gaelic broadcasting with was An Comunn Gaidhealach and presumably he showed it the bratach bana in the process. In considering the amount of programme time to be given to independent producers, will he recall that not all Scottish programmes are derived from Scotland? Will the percentage be based on the total or on the percentage produced in Scotland? Secondly, when talking about independent productions in Scotland, will he ensure that we are not planning to auction off only to the national large-scale organisations?
    Mr. Renton: I am not certain that I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question. I took my pronunciation of Comunn na Gaidhlig from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) who was responsible for bringing the deputation to see me. Thereafter, I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about the amount of independent production in Scotland geared to the Scottish audience. Border Television, about one third of whose audience is in Scotland, has increased its independent production facilities for use by others from about £40,000 a year to over £3 million. BBC Scotland is now producing 228 hours a year of network programmes and 584 hours of programmes specifically directed at the Scottish market.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, especially in the north-east, there is a fondness for Grampian Television? That lies behind part of the questions asked by Opposition Members. Is he aware that in the discussions that many of us had with the Scottish broadcasters there was an acceptance and an awareness of the opportunities that will arise as a result of cable and microwave broadcasting? That will make it possible to produce programmes with more Scottish content and more local programmes for different parts of Scotland, because the Highlands are different from the Lowlands or the Borders.
    Mr. Renton: I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I recently read an interesting study by Grampian which emphasised the extent to which programmes such as Scottish documentaries and local Scottish news are of particular interest to Scottish viewers. There is no doubt that the arrival of more microwave television, as suggested in the White Paper, will, on a local basis, provide great opportunities for distant communities in Scotland to receive more television services in the future.
    Mr. Steel: Surely the Minister should have specific discussions with the Scottish broadcasting authorities because under the auction proposal small companies such as Grampian and Border will have no chance at all. There is spare capacity in Scotland and, therefore, there is a good case for awarding Channel 5 north of the border.
    Mr. Renton: As I have already said, I have met representatives of Scottish Television recently. The managing director of Scottish Television was one of those who came to see me recently. If any Scottish organisations representing broadcasting want to come to see me in the coming weeks, they are welcome to do so.

    Bail (Electronic Monitoring)
    Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the proposed pilot projects to use electronic monitoring for people on bail will commence; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: We expect the projects to begin next summer.
    Mr. Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his humane innovation. Will he reassure the House that there will be no increase in the proportion of people receiving bail under the scheme who are accused of certain crimes of violence for which the scheme may not be appropriate? Will he reassure the House that people who break the terms of their bail under the scheme will be sent back to gaol by the courts?
    Mr. Patten: I can give an assurance on both counts.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister have any plans to place an electronic tag on Umberto Fiore who is wanted by the Italian authorities? They have been seeking to extradite him from this country for the past seven years in connection with the bombing of a train that resulted in the deaths of more than 80 people.
    Mr. Patten: There has been no delay in the consideration of that case.

    Kindertransport Group
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any requests and representations from representatives of the Kindertransport group in connection with its planned 50-year commemorations in 1989.
    Mr. Renton: In November my right hon. Friend received, and officials acknowledged, an invitation from the chair of the Kindertransport committee to open its planned 50-year commemorations in June 1989. My right hon. Friend will not be able to attend as he will be at a meeting of European Ministers of Justice in the Hague, but I am pleased to accept the invitation on his behalf.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his and the Home Office's response in encouraging and supporting the venture and for accepting the invitation. Does he agree that it will be a moving occasion—it will take place in Harrow leisure centre in June 1989—when Jewish refugees who were given permission to come into Britain 50 years ago by the then Home Secretary will be commemorating their survival of the evils of Nazism and the fact that the United Kingdom lived up to its honourable tradition of providing a haven for political refugees?
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for the remarks at the beginning of his question. I am well aware not only of his work but of that of his wife in helping Jewish communities throughout the world. Like him, I hope that this will be a memorable and moving occasion to commemorate a time when Britain responded to its traditional obligation to look after refugees.

    Criminal Offences (Under-age People)
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given consideration to
    1078
    introducing legislation which would require parents to stand trial alongside under-age members of their family brought to court for criminal offences.
    Mr. Hurd: Parents can already be required to attend the court with children under 17 and to pay fines, compensation and costs imposed on such children. I wish that this provison were better known, and more widely used.
    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend consider making parents' attendance at courts in these circumstances mandatory? Does he agree that the quality of our society would be best improved by stressing the individual's responsibilities to it? Does he agree that for too long now we have stressed the individual's rights in, rather than his responsibilities to, society?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Prime Minister and I have been stressing those exact points and will continue to do so.
    As regards my hon. Friend's first point, it is best left to the court. One can imagine family circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to make it mandatory to attend or to pay fines and compensations. But parents attend or pay now in only 21 per cent. of cases. My hon. Friend is right that that is too few; I hope the courts will seek to increase it.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Not now.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend agree to convey to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the warm congratulations of the House on his blunt demand that the Irish Government review their extradition procedures? Does she agree that the fight against terrorism demands the wholehearted support of all parties in the House—not the often half-hearted attitude manifested by the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it will give me great pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have also had a clear assurance from the Taoiseach, repeated in the Dail this week, that the Irish Government's extradition procedures will be looked at again if they prove unsatisfactory, as they clearly have done.
    I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the performance of Opposition Members. It is a great pity that we cannot rely on their support in the fight against terrorism.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Under-Secretary of State for Health says:

    1079
    "most of the egg production in this country is … infected with salmonella".
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says:
    "it is not the case that most eggs are infected."
    Will the Prime Minister clear up the confusion and tell us which of her Ministers is right?
    The Prime Minister: We are aware of the deep problems facing the egg industry. We think that we have a duty to give greater publicity to the advice that the Chief Medical Officer has already given, which I repeated to the House at Tuesday's Question Time. We are already taking measures under the new code of practice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tackle the new strain of salmonella. We are also urgently considering the representations that have been made to us.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not obvious from that answer that the concern expressed by the Prime Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as by Opposition Members, is well founded? Is it not also obvious that £500,000 is much too little to repair the damage done to the egg industry, and much too much to spend on saving the face of the Under-Secretary of State for Health?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows from the answer that I gave last time that there is a problem, and that salmonella is connected with and has been traced to eggs. There have been about 49 cases affecting more than 1,000 people. It is our bounden duty to give the Chief Medical Officer's advice to everyone in a way that can be clearly understood. As I indicated, we are also considering other matters.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: Following yesterday's statement by Mr. Yasser Arafat, in which he recognised Israel's right to exist and unequivocally renounced violence and terrorism, does my right hon. Friend share the hope that the way is clear for an international conference to settle the problems of the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I believe that Mr. Arafat's latest statement justifies our insistence since 1985 on three conditions being met before the PLO could enter into negotiations. They are, first, that the PLO recognises United Nations resolutions 242 and 338; secondly, that it recognises explicitly Israel's right to exist behind secure borders; and, thirdly, that it unconditionally renounces violence and terrorism. It seems that all three have been met, and I join my hon. Friend in hoping that that will enable negotiations to go forward within the framework of an international conference, which proposal we have also supported for a considerable length of time.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister read the report stressing once again the dangers of global warming that was published last week? [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not hear me. I asked whether she has read the report once again stressing the dangers of global warming. Does she recall that a little over a month ago—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall that a little more than a month ago, she agreed with me that there is an urgent necessity for an energy conservation programme? Does she recall setting a target of 2 per cent. for energy conservation in Britain? Will the Prime Minister say now what the Government will do about that?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we recognise the dangers that could arise from the greenhouse effect. We acknowledge that joint efforts to tackle it are required on the part of all nations. It is only partly a matter of energy efficiency; it is also a matter of preserving tropical rain forests, which use up carbon dioxide better than anything else, and of replacing some coal energy production by nuclear energy. Yes, it is important to achieve energy efficiency. Most people are aiming to do that, because it leads to lower costs. However, it is not the only factor, and many additional aspects must be tackled jointly with other countries. The subject is also tied up with chlorofluorocarbons, which can aggravate the greenhouse effect. We shall have a conference on that aspect in this country next March.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be widely welcomed if she is able to announce that her Government will make a contribution to the mayor of Wandsworth's appeal for the victims of the Clapham Junction rail disaster and their families?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the mayor of Wandsworth has set up a disaster fund. Her Majesty's Government will contribute to it the sum of £250,000. We hope that that will encourage others to make further contributions.

    Grangemouth
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Grangemouth.
    The Prime Minister: At present, I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Ewing: If the Prime Minister does not want to visit my constituents, may I, in all seriousness, ask if two of my constituents may visit her at 10 Downing street? Both have been widowed for a long time, and I wrote to the Prime Minister about one of them. Neither of them will be allowed to transfer from the widowed mother's allowance to the widow's pension. Both have to live on £35 a week less than they did before the recent changes in social security regulations. As I admit to complete failure in my attempts to tell them how to survive on £35 a week less, may I have those widows meet the Prime Minister—so that she may tell them how their families can survive over Christmas on £35 a week less than they had in the past?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that a decision on any particular case is made not by the Government but by independent statutory authorities within the framework of legislation passed by the House. He is also aware that the guarantee that those pensions will be protected against inflation is now firmer than at any time in history, and that more generous income support has been provided than ever before. I hope that he will tell that to the lady concerned.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much pensioners in my constituency are now looking forward to Christmas? They received their Christmas bonus last week, and are secure in the knowledge that heating costs for the winter are included in their income support. If we have a particularly cold spell this winter, more people than ever before will receive additional assistance to pay their heating costs.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. The Christmas bonus is now an annual event, as it was not under the last Labour Government, when pensioners did not always receive their bonus. The uprating of benefits in line with inflation is now not only annual but related specifically to the RPI, and is more assured than ever before. The heating allowance has now been included in income support, so pensioners can be sure of receiving it, and there is a better severe weather payment than ever before. That is all because increasing prosperity has enabled us to be more generous to such people.
    Mr. Sillars: May I refer the right hon. Lady to the Government's political guarantee to 16 and 17-year-olds that they will obtain YTS places? If they do not do so, they are rendered penniless. Why does the right hon. Lady not make that political guarantee a legal guarantee, and thus give 16 and 17-year-olds real rights?
    The Prime Minister: In my answer to a question a few days ago, I made it perfectly clear that there are more YTS places than there are applicants for them. As that is true in all regions, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. He must be hard put to find a critical question.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's announcement of the latest substantial fall in unemployment, which brings the figure down by 1 million from July 1986? It is down for the 28th consecutive month. Has she also noticed that in Wales, which has had 20 per cent. of all inward investment, the figure has fallen faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, unemployment is indeed falling everywhere, but, as my hon. Friend says, Wales is doing particularly well, as are the west midlands and the north-west. The position relating to the long-term unemployed is particularly encouraging, with a record fall of some 450,000 in the past two years, and there are more people at work than ever before.
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Buchan: In the course of her busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to read the statement issued by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in which he calls into question her nuclear policies and, among other things, describes her mean-minded response to Mr. Gorbachev's offer of unilateral reduction last week as "a bronchial whisper"? Will she shout her response a little louder?
    The Prime Minister: I had a chance to read the statement, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with it. As he is aware from the figures on conventional weapons that I gave last time, the Soviet Union still has between two and three times as many tanks and weapons as we have. It has reduced its weaponry by about 10 per cent., but its superiority is still enormous.
    We shall keep our independent nuclear deterrent. We remember when we gave up chemical weapons unilaterally and the Soviet Union stepped up chemical weapon production, both in modernisation and amount. Hope is not a basis for a sound defence policy.
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December 1988.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Has my right hon. Friend seen the interesting and very acceptable news from Europe about whisky: that 40 per cent. is to be the correct proof for whisky throughout Europe? Is not that, in conjunction with the Scotch Whisky Act, clear evidence that this Government and the Conservative party are the best custodians of Scotland's interests?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The recent agreement in Brussels, after six years of detailed and difficult negotiations, mark a major step forward for the Scotch whisky industry. The regulation provides a clear definition of whisky and minimum alcohol strengths for all spirits, including the 40 per cent. alcohol by volume for all whisky that was sought by the Scotch Whisky Act, which was sponsored by my hon. Friend in the last Session. I agree with him that this shows the Government's determination to safeguard this major exporting industry.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Prime Minister go a little further than she went when she replied to her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)? Given that the American Administration is to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at ambassadorial level, and given also that the PLO has met all the commitments that the right hon. Lady set down, will she now instruct her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation at that level to encourage the process of moderation that will eventually lead to the resolution of the middle east conflict?
    The Prime Minister: We have no immediate plans to do so, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently met the PLO representative because he had already accepted the three points that were later accepted by Mr. Arafat. I agree that this is a considerable step forward, and we most certainly wish to encourage it.
    Mr. Speaker: Business questions.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take points of order after business questions.
    Mr. Skinner: My point of order relates to a Home Office question.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after business questions.
    Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is seeking to raise a point of order that arises directly—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know, because the hon. Gentleman has told me about it.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order later. [Interruption.] We take points of order after Question Time. These are business questions.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Dobson: I understood, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to every hon. Member. The House knows that points of order are taken after Question Time and business questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] The Secretary of State is here.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall not take it until after business questions.

Business of the House
3.33 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, private Members' motions.
Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. It will be proposed that the House should rise on Thursday 22 December until Tuesday 10 January.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, motions on social security uprating and re-rating orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
Motions on the Welsh rate support grant report and supplementary reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order.
WEDNESDAY 21 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill.
Debate on a motion to take note of EC documents relating to structural funds. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 22 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that, subject to the progress of business. The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 10 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Motion relating to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 11 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
Motions on Scottish rate support grant and revenue support grant orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 12 JANUARY—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement.
FRIDAY 13 JANUARY—There will be a debate on AIDS on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Debate on Social Security Orders on Tuesday 20 December:
Social Security (Contributions and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1988
Debate on Welsh Rate Support Grant Reports on Tuesday 20 December:
Welsh Rate Support Grant Report 1989–90 (HC 32)
Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1988–89 (HC 33)
Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 2) Report 1987–88 (HC 34)
Welsh Rate Support Grant Supplementary (No. 3) Report 1986–87 (HC 35)
Debate on Scottish Orders on Wednesday 11 January:
Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1988
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1988
Wednesday 21 December 1988
Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 7937/1/88

Reform of the structural funds

(b) 10025/86

European Regional Development Fund

(c) 10308/87

European Regional Development Fund

(d) 7002/87

Social and Economic situation in the Regions

(e) COM(88)501

The Future of Rural Society

(f) Unnumbered

Reform of the Structural funds

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 43-xxxvi (1987–88) para 1 and
HC 15-i (1988–89), para 2
(b) HC 22-iii (1986–87) para 4
(c) HC 43-xix (1987–88) para 4
(d) HC 43-ii (1987–88) para 6
(e) HC 43-xxxviii (1987–88) para 6
(f) HC 43-xxvii (1987–88) para 6.]
Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
The Opposition welcome the decision to hold a debate about the Government's failure to set up the Select Commttee on Scottish Affairs. Even at this stage, I express the hope that the Government will see sense and agree to set up the Select Committee. It might help the Leader of the House if those Tory Members who recently have been making such a song and dance about their rights to put down questions on Scotland and take part in debates on Scotland recognised that as well as rights they have duties—duties to the people of Scotland and to the Standing Orders of the House—one of which is to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. If they are so keen to take part in debates on Scottish affairs, they should take their places on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate the placing of the order for the next generation of battle tanks before the Government decide to buy American tanks? That decision has far-reaching consequences affecting not only our defence capability, but the future of a vital British manufacturer and the balance of trade. As the Leader of the House knows, there is concern on both sides of the House about that order.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have abandoned all thought of introducing in the House of Lords the Bill to require everyone who wants to watch a football match to join a football club? That measure is far too controversial not to be debated first in this House.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate on the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire on a substantive motion in prime Government time? The recent horrific accident at Clapham has made it all the more necessary for Ministers to answer to the House on such aspects as the role and staffing of the railway inspectorate of the Department of Transport for which they are directly responsible. It is not good enough to suggest that we debate it late at night, on an Opposition day or on a Friday.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me four questions about next week's business. I think that he welcomed the announcement that I had arranged for a

1087
debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, although I could not be quite sure. I hope that he has some better arguments to put forward than those in his question, or the debate will be over relatively quickly.
The hon. Gentleman's question about tanks concerned a very important matter. I can only repeat what I said a week or so ago, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has told the House that we hope to make a decision before the end of the year. I do not think I can add to that.
As I said to the House last week, the Bill relating to football, has not yet been published. I have undertaken to have the matter discussed through the usual channels, but I must repeat that it is for the Government to determine into which House a Bill is introduced.
With regard to the debate on the Fennell report, I am sorry that the arrangements we proposed for a debate proved unacceptable to the Opposition. It is an extremely important matter which should be debated, but I cannot undertake to arrange a debate in the form requested by the Opposition in the immediate future.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When will the House have an opportunity to debate—on a motion to approve, not on a motion to take note—the important report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? Does my right hon. Friend realise that we need to take early decisions on this matter so that local authorities do not have to go to the expense of preparing Bills that will be out of order if the Joint Committee's recommendations are accepted? There is strong pressure on both sides of the House to take decisions on this matter.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that this is an important matter, and we shall address it. It is an important matter for consideration outside the House as well as inside. I have undertaken to have a debate as soon as I can arrange it so that we can hear the views of the House, exceptionally, before the Government announce their views.
Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman announced that the House will discuss the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order on Tuesday. Has he seen early-day motion 200 on this subject?
[That this House does not approve the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 8th December on the grounds that the Order provides for an increase in the salary of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Health, the honourable Member for South Derbyshire whose performance of her Ministerial duties, in general, and whose damaging remarks on the risks of contracting salmonella from the consumption of eggs in particular, have rendered her unfit to continue to hold Ministerial office.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us on both sides of the House are minded during that debate to raise the issue of the position of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, unless something is done about it between now and Tuesday? Many of us will decide to vote against the order on the grounds that the Government should be aware of the well-known slogan, "Careless talk costs lives." In this case, careless talk is costing jobs and causing bankruptcies. It has caused hundreds of chickens in my constituency and, no doubt, many others to be
1088
slaughtered this week. On any basis of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, the hon. Lady should, by now, have been relieved of her job.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I have seen the early-day motion. Whether what the right hon. Gentleman and others wish to say in the debate is in order is not a matter for me, but I have taken note of his comments.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Because more than twice as many people are killed on our roads this week as died in this week's horrific rail disaster, may we early in the new year have a debate on the admirable North report, which details many ways of improving road safety and which has been published for more than six months?
Mr. Wakeham: This is an important matter and I recognise the need for a debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future, but I shall bear in mind his sensible suggestions.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 201, which commemorates 12 months of the uprising, the intifada, in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza?
[That this House notes the speech of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Chairman, Yasser Arafat, at the Geneva meeting of the United Nations, and the declaration, at its Algiers summit, by the Palestinian National Council, of an independent Palestinian state; recognises the enthusiasm with which the proclamation was welcomed in the occupied Territories, and the sympathy generated throughout the international labour movement; condemns the repression by the Israeli Government of the uprising in the Territories, which, in the 12 months since 8th December 1987, has resulted in over 300 Palestinians shot dead, many thousands injured and arbitrarily detained, homes bulldozed and semi-permanent mass curfews and sieges; contrasts the growing international support for the cause of the Palestinians, based on the heroism of the workers and youth in Gaza and the West Bank, with the deep unease of past methods of terror campaigns, hijackings and guerillaism, and welcomes the recognition by the Palestine Liberation Organisation's leaders that those past methods have not, and would not have, forced Israel into submission; and whilst noting the four decades of United Nations deliberations, and the 150 resolutions carried on the Palestinian question, and understanding the deep wish of the Israeli Jewish workers for peace and a secure future, believes that the future success for the Intifada will be inextricably linked to a fruitful appeal to the Jewish workers for the unity of Jew and Palestine in striving for a Socialist Federation of Israel and Palestine committed to the guarantee of democratic and national minority rights.]
Given the events late last evening, are not the Prime Minister's answers earlier today entirely inadequate? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement on what practical and direct help will be given to the Palestinian people? Those people have suffered more than 300 deaths, thousands of injuries and arbitrary detentions and had their homes bulldozed and whole villages and areas put under semi-permament mass curfew and sieges.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman does not do himself much credit by making such remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Of course, we share

1089
the concern expressed in the early-day motion at the continuing violence in the occupied territories and the repressive measures used by the Israelis in response to it. We welcome Mr. Arafat's clear statement in Geneva which has opened the way to a dialogue between the United States and the PLO and the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would think that there had been a substantial move forward in the past few days.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: In view of the threats to the continued survival of independent financial advisers stemming from the statement yesterday by the Securities and Investments Board, may we expect an early statement from one of the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of investor protection and in the aftermath of the Barlow Clowes affair, it is important that we should do everything that we can to encourage the continued existence of independent financial advisers? Will he persuade his hon. Friends at that Department to stop washing their hands of this important matter, which stems, after all, from Government legislation in the shape of the Financial Services Act 1986?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend certainly raises an important point, but I do not accept the strictures on my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. I shall refer his point to them and, if a statement is necessary, they will certainly make one.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent survey showed that more than 50 per cent. of people in Britain are opposed to the integration of mentally handicapped people in the community? For a civilised society, that shows abysmal intolerance and misunderstanding. As mentally handicapped people already suffer from a handicap and a lack of resources without this stupid prejudice, may we have a debate to discuss their plight?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman a debate in the near future. I recognise that this is an important matter, but I do not accept that his views are right. Obviously this is a matter for debate at the right time.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on both sides of the House would appreciate an early debate in the new year on the important subject of the future of television and broadcasting, especially as recently there was a debate on a similar subject in the other place?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that that is an important matter and one which the House will want to debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate immediately in the new year, but I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware, in view of his passing interest in horse racing, that Downpatrick race course is the only race course in the United Kingdom and Ireland which does not receive any Government benefit? Will he provide time early in the new year for the small amendments required to the Horse Racing and Betting Order 1976 which has the support of his ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I knew that important fact and as the hon. Gentleman has raised it in the House, many more people will be made aware of it. What is more important, the people who are responsible for these matters will also take it on board and give it proper consideration.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the laws of blasphemy? My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has tabled an early-day motion referring to the book "Satanic Verses" by Mr. Salman Rushdie.
[That this House regrets the distress caused to Muslims in the United Kingdom by the publication of Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie; notes that the book has been banned in India and Pakistan and the Islamic nations; and reminds authors that freedom of speech goes hand in hand with responsibility to ensure the accuracy of what is written.]
The Muslim community in Bolton is petitioning for a ban on the book. I understand that some members of the Church of England want the laws on blasphemy extended to include other religions, and, on the other hand, that the Law Reform Committee wants to scrap the laws on blasphemy. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has recommended this book for a prize, but I understand that the Library feels that it is not worth stocking.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises a number of interesting questions. I cannot find time for a debate i n the immediate future. There are occasions when my hon. Friend could raise these matters if he feels that they are sufficiently important.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the business for Monday night? Does he realise that there is always considerable pressure from Back Benchers to have an opportunity to debate particular topics? He repeatedly claims from the Dispatch Box that there are opportunities, particularly as we approach a recess. Does he realise that, by tabling private Members' business followed by the Adjournment motion and Consolidated Fund Bill debates, he is substantially reducing those opportunities?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when the House agreed to change the Standing Orders so that the Consolidated Fund Bill debate finished at 9 am instead of continuing for a period to be determined by the Whips and others, an undertaking was given that we would have a whole day for it? That undertaking is being eroded in two ways on Monday, which is grossly unfair. Will he reinforce the undertaking and make it clear that in future a Consolidated Fund Bill debate will run for a full day so that Members may have a full opportunity to use it to raise the many issues which they press on the right hon. Gentleman at business questions?
Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. It is by no means unprecedented for the Consolidated Fund Bill debate to start at the time appointed on Monday, but I shall seek to ensure that we start earlier on future occasions.
Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider how the Standing Committee on the Transport (Scotland) Bill is to be manned? Will he bear in mind the fact that last Session we

1091
had to reduce the size of the Committee on the Schools Boards (Scotland) Bill? If he has given that consideration, will he tell us what is happening?
Mr. Wakeham: Following discussions through the usual channels, it would be for the general convenience of the House if we did not try to reduce the number of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies required by Standing Orders to serve on the Committee dealing with the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Instead, we shall be proposing that a Scottish Standing Committee larger than those nominated in the last Session should be appointed to consider the Bill.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To return to the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I assure the Leader of the House that Tuesday evening's debate will not be over quickly, given that he and his colleagues have 18 months of neglect to explain. When does he anticipate tabling the motion to enable hon. Members to put down appropriate amendments? Will the motion take account of Standing Order No. 130, which instructs the House to establish such a Select Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: It is better to travel hopefully than necessarily to arrive. I recognise that strong views will be expressed in next Tuesday's debate. I will table the motion later today, which I hope will be satisfactory.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Press reports on Tuesday drew attention to the publication of the Court of Auditors' report, which for the fourth year running has apparently revealed widespread fraud, some corruption and illegal devices in the spending of the EEC. Will my right hon. Friend say when we will be likely to discuss this document? Given that the British taxpayer and others are paying for this excessive expenditure, will he explain why this document is available to the press but not to the House of Commons?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's last question, but I shall look into it and give him a satisfactory answer. I have not read the document, but press reports certainly reveal some disturbing aspects. It is better that the Government and others consider the report before deciding how best to proceed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: May I express the appreciation of the Select Committee on European Legislation to the Leader of the House for acceding to a special request for a debate on structural funds, which was originally requested in November? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the document sets new criteria for the social fund, the regional fund and the agricultural guidance fund of the EEC, which could affect the constituencies of all hon. Members? It will be decided by the Council of Ministers shortly after Christmas. Given the importance of the matter, is a debate lasting an hour and a half sufficient, or will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the rule to enable us to have a three-hour debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about arranging the debate, and I reciprocate by saying that I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention. Having received his letter, I decided that action
1092
was required, which I took. A decision on whether the debate should be extended from the normal hour and a half is best made through the usual channels.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to bring to the Province peace, stability and reconciliation? As more than three years have elapsed since the agreement was signed, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be timely to have a debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that this is an important matter that should be discussed in the House. The review that is taking place will take several months, and it is a matter of judgment when the best time for debate will be. I recognise that some will want it earlier than others, but we will consider all requests.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the jobs of the Leader of the House is to oversee the facilities and amenities of this place. Is he aware that when I came here earlier, six large hampers—probably from Fortnum and Mason—had come directly from the Bank of Credit and Commerce for certain Tory Members of Parliament, including one ex-Tory Member of Parliament, Freddie Bennett? One could have got a body in the hampers, which it took two men to lift. They were full of food and booze and should be included in the Register of Members' Interests. The men who were unloading them said to me, "Can we get a trolley?" I said, "I will ask the Leader of the House"—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question; and will he make it a business question please?
Mr. Skinner: When we debate the Register of Members' Interests, should we insist that Tory Members list on the register the Christmas hampers that they get from the Bank of Credit and Commerce, which has been described in some circles as a corrupt bank? Why is it that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a chairman. He would not allow his members to digress.
Mr. Skinner: If the Leader of the House provides the staff and the trolley to move the big hampers upstairs into the House of Commons, will he allow the contents of the one that is addressed to Sir Frederic Bennett, who is no longer a Member of Parliament, to be distributed to those who try to exist on Charing Cross embankment, or will they go to the double agent who sits on the Government Back Benches?
Mr. Wakeham: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman pushes his bile and points a bit too far. He appears not to have his name on any of the packages. No doubt he is a bit jealous about that. I do not believe that there is any need to debate the matter. Matters to do with Members' interests are dealt with in a proper and regulated fashion in the House, and they are not helped by the hon. Gentleman's wild accusations.
Mr. Richard Holt: As Dr. Marietta Higgs has gone to court to protect herself from discipline by the Northern regional health authority, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time that we debated consultants' contracts under the NHS? They have not been altered since they were introduced, and time has marched on.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the case that he has mentioned. Consultants' contracts are a perfectly legitimate matter for debate. They could be referred to at times other than Government time. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for us fully to discuss the extent of the enormous damage that has been done to egg producers, the need for compensation, and the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to correct a great wrong that was done by a junior Minister who should be sacked forthwith?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government are well aware of the deep problems facing the egg industry. That is why today they issued a press advertisement that was designed to advise and reassure the public about eggs. We are also considering further action in addition to measures that we have already taken to tackle the new strain of salmonella. We are urgently considering the representations that have been made to us. In the debate on Monday night, there will be an opportunity for those hon. Members who catch Mr. Speaker's eye to make contributions.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to make sure that anything for my predecessor, Sir Frederic Bennett, if it is addressed to the hon. Member for Torbay, comes to me, whether or not it comes from Fortnum and Mason?
Mr. Wakeham: The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) were addressed to me, or, more correctly, to Mr. Speaker, but I have no knowledge about Christmas presents.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On the question about the Government's failure to find enough Opposition Members to form the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to table a motion that suggests that the work that would normally be carried out by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could or should be carried out by any other Select Committee, there is no way that any Opposition Member who is a member of any other Select Committee will participate or assist.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, Members take great interest in Scottish business. Rather than the Leader of the House trying to offload his responsibility and that of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, we expect him to form a Select Committee on Scotland. It is not acceptable for him to try to offload that work on to other Select Committees. The right hon. Gentleman and the Chairman should ask those hon. Members who are concerned about Scotland to join the Select Committee and get it up and running.
Mr. Wakeham: As on most occasions when the hon. Gentleman asks such questions, he has it wrong, and has not followed this process—it has been going on for a long time—with perhaps the care that he should have done. However, that does not greatly encourage me to take his advice about the form of the Government's motion for the debate. I shall table the motion later today and, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, that will be the basis for the debate. Obviously, he will be entitled to table an
1094
amendment if he does not feel that the motion reflects the view on which he would like the House to come to a decision.
Mr. Julian Amery: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), my right hon. Friend suggested that the review of the Hillsborough agreement might go on for some months. Of course we accept the monopoly of wisdom of the Government and their omniscience in all these matters. but I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should wait until that review is concluded. We believe that it may be a help to Ministers to have some idea what the House thinks about these matters before decisions are taken.
Mr. Wakeham: I fully agree with that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also anxious to hear any views that right hon. and hon. Members and others may wish to express. We accept that the House should have an opportunity to express its views. All I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was that it is a matter of judgment as to when will be the most helpful time for the debate.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Am I correct in understanding that the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order does not include the proposal of the Top Salaries Review Body that Ministers who are sacked or resign should continue to receive their ministerial salary for three months to allow them to adjust to the much lower income of a Back Bencher? If that is not in the order, has the Leader of the House abandoned all thought of bringing that proposal before the House?
Mr. Wakeham: The order that I lay will be in accordance with the answers that I gave to Parliament, which briefly contained the terms on which the order will be based. The order will be laid in good time for the debate.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the National Health Service, bearing in mind that the Gloucester health authority appears to wish to close the Berkeley and Tetbury community hospitals in my constituency? Such a debate would give me the opportunity to observe that it is the Gloucester health authority that is in need of deep-cut surgery and not community hospitals in my constituency.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has tried his luck with an Adjournment debate, but that would appear to be a suitable opportunity to voice his concern.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement concerning the recent decision of the Association of Chief Police Officers that there should be a national register of missing persons? Is he aware that the present system is completely unsatisfactory, that the computer at Scotland Yard is a disaster and that the Salvation Army is doing a wonderful job—and will do so over Christmas—in trying to reunite families? However, thousands of families will spend a thoroughly miserable Christmas because they cannot find missing relatives.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman

1095
has said, but I suspect that he does not accept everything that he said. However, it is an important issue, and my right hon. Friend will consider how best to communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Before the Bill on identity cards in football grounds is introduced, may we have an early debate on a national scheme of voluntary identity cards so that football clubs, pubs and other places of entertainment can control their entry requirements?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate, but, reading the press this morning, I felt that the subject of identity cards may be before the House in one form or another in the not too distant future.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to consider early-day motion 176, which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House condemns the decision of the South African courts to jail for six years, 18 year old Charles Bester following his conscienscious objection to serving in the South African armed forces; notes his statement in court after hearing his sentence, 'you shall know that truth and the truth shall set you free'; and calls upon the South African government to immediately release Mr. Bester.]
It concerns the case of Charles Bester, an 18-year-old African who last week was sentenced to six years' imprisonment by the South African courts, because of his refusal to be conscripted into the South African armed forces. Does he not believe that it would be appropriate for the Government to make representations to the South African Government to seek clemency?
Mr. Wakeham: No, we reject the motion. Such decisions are for the individuals concerned. However, we understand why some young South Africans refuse to do military service, and we respect the sincerity of their views.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas? I shall be more than ready to help him out with any sticky comestibles that he may have in his hamper.
Will the Leader of the House give time for an early debate on endangered species? I was not referring to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath); I was referring to, for example, black rhinos, gorillas and elephants. The right hon. Gentleman must have read recent newspaper stories and will know that there is great concern for such animals. It would be much appreciated if we could have an early debate on endangered species.
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman was talking about endangered species, I thought that he was talking about himself. I see that today he is in his winter plumage, and I look forward to seeing him in brighter attire when the spring comes. He has raised a serious matter in which he takes a serious interest and for which the House respects him. I cannot promise him an early debate, but it is certainly a matter that I shall bear in mind.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary next week to make a statement to the House about the policy for issuing visas to those who wish to visit the United Kingdom? Is he
1096
aware that, on 5 December, Mr. Narinder Singh applied to a British post in India for a visit visa to visit his brother-in-law who was seriously ill in a Leeds hospital? Mr. Singh was asked to produce a doctor's letter confirming that his brother-in-law was in hospital, which he did last Monday. Unfortunately, his brother-in-law died on Saturday.
On Monday, he asked for a visa to attend the funeral and to help his sister and her young family to settle his brother-in-law's affairs. He has still not been granted a visa, despite several hours of discussion and telexes this week between London and India. It appears that this decision, and many others like it, are in direct contradiction of assurances given by Home Office and Foreign Office Ministers that visas would be quickly granted in urgent medical cases.
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously I cannot comment on the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I shall make inquiries when I leave the Chamber and I shall contact him.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Before the publication of the football Bill, will the Leader of the House talk to the Department of the Environment to ensure that I receive an answer to a question that I put down on the Order Paper a fortnight ago suggesting that the league table should be studied in terms of football violence? The table may show that, when considered against the numbers attending football matches, the number of incidents of violence may be insignificant. Or is he worried that Luton Town may finish at the top?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not worried in the least about such matters, but I shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer to his question.
Mr. Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House inform the House why he has decided to delay debate on cold weather payments until mid-January? Will he review that decision, because many tens of thousands of pensioners are facing illness and death this winter? Can we not for once tackle the matter before the winter is halfway through and there are catastrophic effects for pensioners?
Mr. Wakeham: We had discussions about changing the time of the debate, and the Government felt that it would be more convenient to have the debate on the date that I have recently announced.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House confirm or deny that it is not his intention to set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs? What is so complex about doing so? The Opposition will gladly man a Select Committee on Scottish affairs. We desperately need it.
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the tradition of the House is that Select Committees are set up by agreement with Members in all parts of the House. I have tried for a long time to obtain agreement. Unfortunately, the proposals that I presented to the Opposition were not acceptable, and I make no complaint about that. That will be the subject of the debate, and no doubt we can discuss it next week.

Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 22 December, up to nine hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Points of Order
4.9 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during Question Time the Home Secretary reached question No. 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), regarding a national identity scheme after 1992. The question was quite specific. It was in no way allied to the scheme for football that is proposed by the Minister with responsibility for sport. Question No. 73 on the Order Paper relates specifically to the football identity card scheme.
It is a well-known practice—indeed, a rule—in the House that when a Minister is answering questions, so as not to cause embarrassment to anyone or to cause difficulties to the House, he shall not answer questions further down the Order Paper. On question No. 7, at the end of his last answer to the supplementary questions that had been asked, the Home Secretary referred to the football membership scheme. I drew that to your attention immediately, Mr. Speaker, for the very good reason that that practice must be stopped. It should not be allowed because it would provide much more room for manoeuvre for any Government, irrespective of colour.
It is important to raise the matter now as a point of order as it should be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary, who may not have been aware of the mistake that he was committing. When such occasions arise, there is a perfectly reasonable and proper practice for doing what the Home Secretary might have wished to do, and that is to approach Mr. Speaker earlier in the day saying, "I wish to answer question No. 73 about a matter which I regard as important." The Home Secretary did not use that procedure. He thought that he could get away with it without anyone noticing, but we have caught him out.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with the matter, although of course I shall call the Home Secretary if he so wishes. If that did occur—I shall look carefully at Hansard—perhaps I should have drawn the attention of the House to it. But I must say that it had escaped me. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I go through the Order Paper carefully and try to ensure that those with questions lower down the Order Paper have an opportunity to be called. I had not linked that question on the Order Paper. I had linked question No. 37 with question No. 7. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Perhaps I should in future be stricter in listening to supplementary questions. The hon. Gentleman is frequently very close to the mark.
Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept the principle to which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has drawn attention. I understand its importance, and I would not have tried anything out either on him or on you, Mr. Speaker, but I say emphatically that I was not trying to answer question No. 73. I am ashamed to say that my reading of the Order Paper had not got that far. Now that I have studied question No. 73, I see
that it is about legal disqualification under the football membership scheme. It does not

1099
mention identity cards. The answers that I was giving to a series of supplementary questions were all about identity cards, and I believe that tomorrow Hansard will show that there is only a glancing relationship between the answers that I gave and the answer that I would have given to question No. 73 had it been reached.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give me guidance on how we can, within the rules of order, raise the matter of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) who, according to a report today, works for a company appropriately known as Grafton Interaction and has offered his services for the sum of £2,900 a month to a Danish company.
"in the run-up to privatisation of electricity"?
It is reported that the hon. Gentleman used his position as a member of the Select Committee on Energy to offer his services to the Danish Board of District Heating, an organisation representing about 30 communal central heating firms. The letter from Grafton stated:
"We can supply confidential reports of political activities, discussions with UK Government Ministers and the thinking of the specialist groups in Parliament."
Is it in order for a Member of the House to prostitute himself and to try to sell, for personal gain, specialist knowledge obtained through his membership of the House and through dealings with Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the position described by the hon. Gentleman remains hypothetical at present. Should the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) acquire a declarable interest, I am sure that he will declare it. Wider matters to do with the registering and declaring of interests are within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I cannot rule on an individual case in response to a point of order.
Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Normally we inform hon. Members if points of order relating to them are to be raised in the House. Did the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) inform my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) that he intended to raise this point of order? If not—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, the Chair can impose the rules—there are not very many of them—but convention is a matter of honour between Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly a convention that we do that.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For some time now there has been a change in the way in which points of order are raised. There was a time when a point of order could be raised immediately on an issue that might have been of great interest to the House and it would be taken at that time. Now we are always told that points of order must be taken after questions or statements, when the impact of the issue has usually gone. It may serve to calm the atmosphere, but that is not the point. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the convention that has grown up. Perhaps it is an old-fashioned view, but I believe that when someone wishes to make a point of order, it should be taken there and then. May we return to the former practice?
Mr. Speaker: I do not need to reconsider the matter because I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. If a matter of order arises at any time, it should be raised immediately with the Chair. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had raised that matter immediately, I would have dealt with it at the time. That would have been the correct way of dealing with it. He sought to raise it at the end of Question Time as arising out of questions. That is a practice upon which I ruled on 12 February 1987. Matters that need immediate attention from the Chair may be raised at once.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is much more domestic and in search of guidance. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are becoming increasingly worried about the lack of taxis coming into the House during the day and especially at night. Will you use any influence that you have to ensure either a greater supply of taxis or that alternative arrangements are made? On some nights, hon. Members may stand for 50 minutes waiting to go home.
Mr. Speaker: I have no authority for dealing with taxis. That matter should be raised with the Services Committee.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Of course I shall hear points of order now, but there is a long list of speakers for the subsequent debate. I fear I shall have to place a limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. I do not like doing that, but in the circumstances I shall have to do it.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could have your advice. Some time ago, as you will recollect, you said that a debate about the sale of old people's homes in Bradford was sub judice as a result of a High Court case. Strangely, that did not stop Bradford council deciding, on Tuesday, to hire private management consultants to negotiate the sale of those homes on the basis of the life expectancy of old people living in them. I attended the High Court case in London this morning and the High Court has reserved judgment. It is not known when the judgment will be made.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not pursue his point of order. As the matter is sub judice, I cannot deal with it.
Mr. Madden: That is precisely the point, Mr. Speaker. In view of the present situation, will it be permissible for myself and other hon. Members who are anxious about it to raise the matter? It has been debated extensively in our own council chamber whereas we are denied the opportunity to debate it in Parliament. Would we be in order next week to raise this matter, which is important to our constituents, in view of the fact that the High Court has reserved judgment and it may be weeks before its judgment is delivered?
Mr. Speaker: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall look into the matter and communicate with him. I repeat that we have a heavy day ahead of us.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to the point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)? Will you confirm that, if the allegations about the hon. Member for

1101
Erewash (Mr. Rost) are true, he has complied with the rules of the House? He is entitled to act in that way under our rules because they do not preclude people from doing so, if they register. They can then do what they want.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. I am not prepared to rule on a hypothetical matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The key issue is the position of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. A general principle is involved here. When the interests of a Member change after that Member has been appointed to a Select Committee of the House, the responsibility is placed on the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to reconsider that selection. if the hon. Member for Erewash, or any hon. Member had declared an interest prior to his selection, he might not have been selected.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that issue is hypothetical. He has abused the time of the House. The matter should be drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, if the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it. I have aleady made that point.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard earlier in exchanges with the Leader of the House of his regret that he has removed three hours of opportunity for hon. Members to debate matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday. Will you confirm that the Standing Orders of the House require the Consolidated Fund Bill debate to be completed at 9 am, on Tuesday, but that there is nothing to stop the Government tabling a motion to extend the debate by three hours, thereby restoring to Back Benchers the opportunity of further debate? Perhaps, as guardian of Back Benchers' rights, you would at least consider using your influence to press the Government to consider that.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The honour of one of our colleagues has been most disgracefully impugned this afternoon and he is not present to defend himself. I merely seek guidance about whether we can seek information about whether our colleague was informed, in accordance with the conventions of the House, before the statement was made.
Mr. Speaker: The matter has been raised previously. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman was not so informed, or he would probably have been here. I believe the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) quoted from a report in a newspaper. But I hope that all of us will always stick to the conventions of the House, which have served us well over the decades.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that the matter is not hypothetical. I agree that whether money has changed hands is hypothetical—clearly it has not in this case. What is not hypothetical is that a letter has been written. In view
1102
of that, may I put it to you that the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) should be asked to explain himself to the House. Such activity brings the House into disrepute?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is alleging a contempt of the House, he must draw my attention to it by letter, in the proper way.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sorry to press the point, but in view of the, I imagine, legitimate points of order made by other hon. Members, would it not be incumbent on the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—who is unfortunately leaving the Chamber at this moment—to say whether he notified my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) of what he intended to say? Does that not raise serious issues about the tradition of notifying an hon. Member that he will be referred to in an attack of that kind?
Mr. Speaker: That is correct, but, as I have already said, it is not within the power of the Chair to compel hon. Members to adhere to the conventions of the House, although it is a great pity if they are not adhered to.
Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have, of course, a duty to protect hon. Members. Is it right that Opposition Members should he able to make slanderous statements against other hon. Members, under the guise of a point of order, and then walk out before they can explain themselves? Are not hon. Members entitled to the protection of the Chair?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have conventions in the House. I have already said that I think that it is a great pity, and lowers the reputation of the House, if we do not stick to the conventions, which have served us well over the years, indeed over the centuries.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Mr. Secretary King, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Viggers, presented a Bill to establish a Fair Employment Tribunal for Northern Ireland and an office of President of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal; to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976; to make further provision with respect to the promoton of equality of opportunity in employments and occupations in Northern Ireland between persons of different religious beliefs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. Secretary Moore, supported by Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to social security and occupational and personal pension schemes; to make provision with respect to certain employment-related benefit schemes; to provide for the recovery, out of certain compensation payments, of amounts determined by reference to payments of benefit; to make fresh provision with respect to the constitution and functions of war pensions committees; and for

  1103
  connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Orders of the day

  Security Service Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Home Secretary, I must repeat to the House that, very sadly, we have a late start today, and many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. I regret that not all of them will be called. I shall impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm, but I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are called before that time to bear in mind that limit in consideration of the late start that we have had today.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill gives Parliament, for the first time this century, the opportunity to establish a framework for the Security Service and to weld it into legislation. A month ago no one suspected that we are about to launch a substantial reform of this kind. Now, so fast does the political kaleidoscope shift, those who in their hearts were amazed at the boldness of what we proposed take it for granted and press for more. Labour Members, who in their time did nothing, are particularly urgent that we should do more than we propose—and much more, of course, than they ever dreamed possible.
  Before I come to the Bill, I must say a word about the Security Service. I am well aware that it is hampered by the fiction which envelops it. I have nothing against the thriller as an art form, but those who unwittingly get their ideas of the Security Service from Sapper, Le Carré or Deighton will not bring much understanding to the Bill. The Security Service is not full of latter-day Bulldog Drummonds, nor is it locked in a time warp of the 1950s, for ever fighting shadows that have long since disappeared. Still less equipped for the debate are those who feed on works of fiction paraded as if they were statements of fact.
  The precursor of today's Security Service was created in the War Office just under 80 years ago to deal with German army espionage. The unit was called M05, and later became M15. In 1935, M15 was amalgamated with the section of the Metropolitan police working to counter subversion and it was in that year—although one would not always think so—that it changed its name to the Security Service. In both world wars, the Security Service was highly successful in counter-espionage and in the last war, the efforts of all the German agents sent here were frustrated.
  Let me deal with the constitutional aspects of the service. At the end of the war, the work of the service was reviewed. In his report in 1963, Lord Denning quoted from a report by Sir Findlater Stewart in 1945, which crisply described the purpose of the Security Service as
  "Defence of the Realm and nothing else".
  That phrase was repeated and developed in 1952 in the Home Secretary's directive to the Director-General of the Security Service—the Maxwell Fyfe directive. That directive, published in Lord Denning's report, continues to apply to the service today.
  We now propose that the language of that injunction should be turned into the requirement of a statute. I share

  1105
  the sorrow of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that the rolling phrases of the 1940s and 1950s are being replaced, but I think that the term "national security" is now well recognised and understood in statute, and it appears in many Bills passed by the Labour party when in government. By its very nature, the phrase refers— and can only refer—to matters relating to the survival or well-being of the nation as a whole, and not to party-political, sectional or lesser interests.
  The main responsibilities of the service for the protection of national security are clearly set out in the Bill. In addition, the Security Service must be able to act if necessary against any substantial threat to the nation as a whole. It is not primarily concerned with matters relating to defence and foreign policy but, as its history shows, it could not, and would not, stand inert in the face of threats to the nation's defence or the hostile actions of a foreign Government. It cannot act in any of those areas, however, unless the security of the nation as a whole is in question. That is what national security means.
  Mr. David Winnick: No one in the House, and very few people outside, would for one moment dispute the need for some kind of security service to protect national security, but how can it be argued that it was in the interests of national security for MI5 to target my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Patricia Hewitt, who are bringing a case against the Government at the European Court of Human Rights? How can my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, as legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Patricia Hewitt, as its general secretary, possibly have undermined national security or the democratic structure of our state?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall not deal with the past operations of the service or with cases that are now before the European Court. I am merely explaining what is in the Bill, and I shall be coming to the hon. Gentleman's point later.
  Clauses 1 and 2 would not permit the Security Service to act against any person or organisation just because he or it has campaigned against the policies of the Government of the day. The Bill makes the political neutrality of the Security Service a statutory requirement for the first time ever. Clause 1 accurately describes the functions of the service as the protection of national security and the safeguarding of our economic well-being from outside threats.
  The House knows that, in recent years, the Security Service has been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, and the shift in the emphasis of its work towards counter-terrorism has been marked and successful. In responding to the threat from Irish terrorism, the Security Service has gained much information that has been used directly and immediately in preventing attacks and thus saving lives. I am thinking in particular of the timely news of arms shipments that have been intercepted before they could reach the island of Ireland and wreak the havoc for which they were intended.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In the book "One Girl's War", the lady concerned says that she and other officers broke into the home of R. Palme Dutt because they understood that the main secrets of the Communist party were kept under his bed. When they examined the box under his bed, they found that it
  1106
  contained his marriage lines. That was the great secret that he kept. The point is that they broke into his home, just as they have broken into and bugged the homes of many other politicians and political people. The Home Secretary says that the service will be politically neutral from now on. Can he assure us that, from now on, people who express political opposition will never be subjected to that sort of thing again?
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is being offered not an assurance from me but a Bill. We are putting these matters on the statute book for the first time. I do not intend to enter into details of what has happened in the past, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the passages in the Bill that are relevant to his point.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary said that clause 1 explicitly excluded any political bias in the service. Will he read us the words that provide that?
  Mr. Hurd: I referred to clauses 1 and 2. clause 2(2)(b) says that it shall be the duty of the director-general to ensure
  "that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  That is a precise and accurate answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  I was dealing with the first and, at the moment, dominant role of the Security Service. I shall deal with subversion in a moment, because I know that that is the aspect that most perturbs Opposition Members.
  As regards espionage, there is not much doubt about the principle involved. During the years since the war, the Security Service has provided information that has led to the possibility of successful and decisive action against hostile intelligence agents in this country. We continue to face other threats from outside the country, which relate to those who would weaken our defences, threaten our economy and suborn those whom we trust with our secrets. Here again, the service exists to protect us.
  I know that one aspect that worries one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is counter-subversion. I do not doubt that the Security Service must be able, within the limits set out in the Bill, to undertake that task. I have no doubt—we have considered the matter many times—that the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris of Greenwich in 1975 and endorsed by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South as Home Secretary was the right one.
  I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. The matter was considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the 1984–85 Session. The Committee was considering police special branches and it accepted that the Harris definition was broadly correct.
  Mr. Winnick: There was a minority report.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member would not deny that that was the conclusion of the Committee.
  It is not sensible to define subversion only in terms of those who breach the criminal law. We must be able to know the plans and intentions of those who abuse the freedom that we provide under the law to infiltrate our institutions and structures. Under the definition, however, the Security Service can take an interest only in people who

  1107
  have a deliberate purpose and intent to undermine parliamentary democracy and who also represent a real threat to the security of the nation.
  The definition is not as wide as some imagine. It is not enough that someone's actions may have the unintended effect of weakening parliamentary democracy. There must be a deliberate intention. It is not enough to have that intention if it presents no current substantial threat. Such people must represent a real threat to the security of the nation, and must intend to do so. That is a fairly narrow and precise definition.
  The Security Service is not interested in the normal and proper conduct of the trade unions of this country; it is not interested in thwarting those who seek to persuade others that Government policies—including this Government's policies—are wrong or that their priorities are wrong. It is not interested in those who join together to make their views heard on, for example, the environment or on our defence policies. It is interested in any who might collectively or individually, overtly or clandestinely, be planning the deliberate overthrow of our parliamentary democracy and in doing so present a real threat to our security and safety. Those who think that such people could not exist are ill-informed. Those who think that the Security Service imagines that such people are everywhere are plain wrong.
  I ask the House to recognise that clauses 1 and 2 have been carefully drafted to ensure that the Security Service is able to continue to protect the nation as a whole, and to give Parliament a clear indication of its principal concerns. The Security Service cannot get involved in lesser objectives, nor can it obtain or disclose information for lesser objectives. Nor, under clause 2(2) from which I have already quoted, can it take action intended to further the interests of any political party, including the party of the Government of the day. Those are all strong safeguards, proposed for the first time in statute, against the Security Service seeking to act outside its functions or against any Government seeking to put improper pressure on the director-general to do so.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Many of us are worried about the meaning of the words
  "undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial… means",
  since the final arbiter will be the Secretary of State reporting to the Prime Minister, not to any Committee of the House. We would do well to keep in mind when we use the words "political" or "industrial" the fact that the Prime Minister described the miners as enemies of the state. Given that kind of definition, what trust can we have in those words?
  Mr. Hurd: The change that I am coming to is fundamental, and addresses the hon. Gentleman's point. The issue of warrants for entering property to obtain information, as with the issue of warrants for interception, will be under the scrutiny of a judge. That is a substantial change, which completely alters the basis on which the hon. Gentleman made his criticism.
  I ask the House not to underestimate the effect of that. We already have experience of that in the arrangements that Parliament approved in the Interception of
  1108
  Communications Act 1985. Our experience of that shows the real impact that the Bill will have on the Security Service and on the work of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does the definition of national security continue to be that given in the White Paper on the interception of communications, which I think covered the Government's foreign and defence policies?
  Mr. Hurd: Yes. If my hon. Friend reads what I said about the definition of national security earlier, he will see that I defined it rather carefully and at rather greater length than previously. He may wish to return to the point later, but I hope that he will study the words that I used at the beginning.
  Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. I must get on.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without in any way wishing to repeat matters dealt with in April, is not one of the purposes of a debate such as this, particularly during the opening speech of a leading Minister, to give hon. Members the opportunity to ask factual questions? Is not the Home Secretary being selective in whom he is prepared to give way to?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye later, he will be able to make his point then.
  Mr. Hurd: I sometimes think that I give way too much. I want to pursue this argument. Many other hon. Members wish to speak and I want to make some progress since I have already given way generously.
  I was explaining the impact of the arrangements under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which we propose to extend under the Security Service Bill to the work of the Security Service and to my own work.
  The arrangements for authorising interception warrants under the 1985 Act ensure that the Home Secretary sees the way in which the concerns and priorities work out in practice. My predecessor will know, because it is a worry that he has expressed, that that was not so in his time. I have either to agree or disagree with them. If an application for a warrant in that area is submitted to me and I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of national security, I shall not issue it.
  In making my decision, I know that the interception commissioner is looking over my shoulder. He has access to all the warrants and has the right to call for any document or file relating to those warrants.
  In his report for 1987, the interception commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Lloyd, said:
  I have examined all the new warrants issued on the ground of major subversive activity, and I have selected other warrants for examination at random. I am satisfied that I have been given a complete list of all new warrants when making my random selection. As last year, I have not come across a single case where the Secretary of State has not been justified in regarding the issue of the warrant as being necessary in the interests of national security, or for the other purposes mentioned in Section 2(2) of the Act".
  That is the commissioner, an independent judge, doing his job and reporting not in a secret document but in the 1987 report which was published in March this year, was laid before Parliament, and is in the Library.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I want to get on.
  If the House approves the Bill, it will have the assurance that similar rigorous procedures will also operate for the property warrant. The Security Service, the Secretary of State and Parliament will know that each and every warrant will be open to the commissioner's impartial and independent scrutiny. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will have to take it from me that it is a formidable feeling to know, as I have known since 1986, that such an oversight exists under the Interception of Communications Act.
  There are two major changes. First, for the first time, the decisions come from the Secretary of State, as they did not when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) held office. Secondly, when dealing with them under the law, I know that I have the judge looking over my shoulder. Anyone who supposes that that is a comfortable, easy or platitudinous position is wrong.
  The commissioner's report will cover not only warrant matters but any other matters arising out of the work of the commissioner or the tribunal as a result of their investigating any complaint. There will be in place—I hope that the House will give full weight to this—a commissioner and a tribunal able to follow up the real practical concerns of people—organisations as well as individuals—who feel in some way aggrieved as a result of what they believe the Security Service has done against them. They do not need to provide any evidence for their views or give any basis for their belief.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Home Secretary seems to be couching his description of the commissioner's powers much more widely than the Bill. Clause 4(3) confines them to warrants—not, as he has suggested, to the whole range of security matters. That is a serious objection to the Bill.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may not have read far enough. He is right that the commissioner has the job of investigating the way in which the Home Secretary exercises his warrant powers. However, the tribunal may also, as I think that he will find in schedule 1, refer to the commissioner a wider range of matters if it is felt that there are grounds for doing so. The crucial point is that his report to Parliament can cover the whole range of his activities as authorised by the Bill.
  Since November 1987, we have had an independent staff counsellor to consider anxieties from within the Security Service. Now, if Parliament agrees, once the tribunal and commissioner are in place to investigate the truth of concerns felt outside the service, the case for publishing rumour and allegations is undermined. We catered for the aggrieved insider when the staff counsellor was put in position a year ago. We cater for the aggrieved outsider, the citizen who feels that the Security Service has done something against him in the Bill, with its provisions for the tribunal and the commissioner.
  Of course, this is not the only possible model. Others have argued for a system of oversight and review. Some think that oversight should be by a Committee of Privy Councillors and others look for a body which draws more widely on Members of the House. Some appear to believe that all matters relating to national security, except
  1110
  perhaps a current operation, should be made publicly available across the Floor. Others look to the Security Commission and suggest its vote should be expanded. Those are serious proposals that deserve to be examined, but, having examined them, we do not favour them.
  Secrecy is at the heart of security. It is not the result—as one might read in fiction—of some paranoia by the Security Service or by Ministers. It is fundamental to the success of the protection of the public by the service. Most people accept the case for some secrecy and they accept that any oversight body would have to respect that. During the debate on the Loyal Address, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) accepted that Ministers should not be obliged to tell the House, for example, that they believed an alleged bomber was staying in a particular hotel. I think everyone would accept that. The difference, therefore, is not over the need for secrecy, but whether it is possible to draw an effective line between what can be kept secret and what can run free.
  I hope that the House understands that we ask the Security Service to work against people and organisations who are not amateur tip and runners, or anarchists with a rush of blood to the head. We ask them, particularly in counter-terrorism, to work against people and organisations who have become highly sophisticated in their methods. Those people work hard at identifying whether they have been spotted and are skilful in taking action to evade detection once they are alerted. One does not have to announce that one knows who they are, or what outrage they are planning, to put them on their guard. They are expert at piecing together and using strands of information and evidence much more cleverly than that.
  In those circumstances, which are borne in upon us day by day, it is not possible to distinguish, as some have genuinely sought to do, between policy and operations, overall resources and how they are spent, or theory and practice. Those distinctions can be made on paper and can be beguiling, but they do not work in practice. An oversight body could not steer clear of secrets by confining itself to the generalities. A body which had no access to secrets would have access to very little of interest or importance to the work of the Security Service. A body that worked and reported in ignorance would not be of much appeal to the House.
  If the body was inside the necessary ring of secrecy, it would have to report in monosyllables to those outside. People could not be expected to be content with that, whether they were members of the body or those who listened to the reports.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way when I have finished the argument.
  I am grateful to the House, the Select Committee and the conventions of the House for helping to ensure that I, like my predecessors, am not placed in an intolerable position. Those conventions would not hold up against the pressures that would weigh on an oversight body that had to report to Parliament and the public on how it fulfilled its remit.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: In Congress and the Senate, the security services select committee examines the budget, oversees the service and has other responsibilities. If it works in America—I was told by the principal adviser to

  1111
  that committee in Washington that it has never leaked and that Congress and Senate were happy with its operations—why could it not work here?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall deal with comparisons between the United States and the Commonwealth shortly, because I understand that they form part of the argument.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his point about the difficulty involved in taking a Select Committee inside the barrier was well illustrated by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in the Zircon affair? The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was taken inside the barrier and told about expenditure. That decision was questioned and seriously challenged by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's point is relevant in general, but not directly to the Security Service. The illustration he has given of the difficulty in which respected Members of Parliament can find themselves is valid, even when applied to the Security Service.
  Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way to me now?
  Mr. Hurd: If I give way to the hon. Gentleman, will be be happy for the rest of the day?
  Mr. Nellist: That is highly unlikely, but I accept the comment with the graciousness with which it was made. Will the Home Secretary answer the question I wished to ask a few minutes ago about the basic and fundamental nature of the Security Service—its subjectivity? In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State mentioned overthrowing or weakening parliamentary democracy. If I and my hon. Friends, together with members of the Labour movement outside this place, were to campaign for something that we think would strengthen parliamentary democracy but which I suspect all Conservative Members would think would weaken it—the abolition of the House of Lords—is that something for which we could be investigated under the terms of the Bill?
  Mr. Hurd: No. That would not be the case under the existing system and, under the safeguards we are proposing in the Bill, which hon. Gentlemen should welcome, that would not be so because the safeguards will state that in black and white.
  We are not saying that no one can step inside the barrier of secrecy. I have mentioned the interception commissioner, who is a judge, and the staff counsellor, who is not a member of the Security Service, and they are both inside. I have also mentioned the Security Commission, which is chaired by a judge, and that has been inside on specific occasions. All those people have a clear and specific job with clear terms of reference and clear lines of reporting. I do not believe that one can read across from that responsibility to a general parliamentary oversight body. Review and oversight are incompatible with the specific or narrow terms of reference held by the people I have mentioned. Review and oversight could not be confined without creating a contradiction at the heart of our security, which we should all want to avoid.
  1112
  As the hon. Member for Workington said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is repeatedly saying, in other countries there are arrangements for oversight. In some cases it is carried out by Privy Councillors, committees of Congress or their equivalent. We should take account of that, but we should not feel that we need to follow automatically what has been proposed or put in place in other countries.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not even if it works?
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that. There should be no willy-nilly or automatic assumption of that sort.
  The hon. Member for Workington referred to the model in the United States. The FBI is the parallel organisation to our Security Service, but it represents an entirely different response, to a different constitutional framework. However effective the arrangements may be in America, they could not be directly implemented here. The crucial point is that the United States has no equivalent to the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. There is no person present in and responsible to the House who has to propose and defend legislation in the way that I am doing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills then says, "What about Australia or Canada, where there are parliamentary systems which are more comparable to ours?" We need to examine that carefully. The provisions in Australia are recent, and the relevant parliamentary committee has not yet met formally. Australians would agree that it is too soon to be clear about how it will work out, but it is worth noting that, among other restrictions, the committee's terms of reference prevent it from reviewing anything said to be operationally sensitive. That may suit Australia well but, in our terms, it would beg many of the questions at issue in this discussion.
  Similarly, the experience in Canada is recent—no more than four years old. It provides for two separate oversight bodies, an inspector-general and his staff and a review committee, and there is discussion in Canada about whether that leads to overlapping and difficult responsibilities. The system, which is very new, is to be reviewed next year.
  Of course, this was a subject of debate in 1986, and we have thought long and hard about oversight and discussed it with others. I had a conversation recently with a Minister in another country who had experience of parliamentary oversight and who said that there was an inevitable tendency—without imputing blame to anyone in particular—to draw party political advantage from the knowledge that the overseers obtained in confidence.
  There is another danger that I must mention to the hon. Member for Workington: the creation of unofficial and subterranean channels of secrecy outside the framework of oversight. We are right to put aside this set of ideas and to concentrate instead on a clear statement of function, organisation and responsibility through Ministers to Parliament, and on a clear remedy for grievance—
  Mr. Nellist rose—
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman promised to be happy, but here he is again; but I am coming to the close of my remarks. Perhaps he will succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was very surprised to read in the newspapers that the Opposition had decided to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I clearly remember how the right hon. Member

  1113
  for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I went off contentedly to the "Newsnight" programme on the day the Bill was published. I remember him saying then that the Labour party would not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. It is sad to see what has happened since then, but it is not a mystery.
  Last week, the right hon. Gentleman made a little foray in the direction of common sense over the handling of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It was not exactly a memorable foray: he was persuading his colleagues to vote for a destructive reasoned amendment and to vote against Third Reading, but in the middle he urged them to stage an heroic abstention on Second Reading. Even that distinctly mouselike movement was too much for the Labour party. There was tumult; the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who is not in her place, wrote a rude letter to her leader. The party was again in disarray and the trumpet for retreat was sounded. So, on this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, despite his clear statement on television and his personal acknowledgment in the House that it was a step forward, has now to slink back to the world of unreality over which he presides as deputy leader.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall not: I am coming to the end.
  We have worked hard and soberly on the Bill for many months. We were not forced into it. We have fully taken into account the views and experiences of the Security Service. We have tried to analyse the present correctly and to look at the kinds of tasks which, as far as one can tell, the Security Service is likely to have to undertake in the years ahead.
  After these months of cool consideration, we decided that the time had come to make the reform and take the step forward contained in the Bill. I hope that, whatever their criticisms, Opposition Members will acknowledge that it is a big step forward for the service, for Government and for Parliament. I hope the House will judge that this is a step which is well weighed, and I urge it to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary was right to say that on the first day of this Parliament, when the House was told of the Government's intention to introduce a Security Service Bill, I said that I hoped that the Opposition would be able to give it at least qualified support. Not only did I say that on television when I had the pleasure of appearing with the Home Secretary, but I said it in the House. I said that we hoped to support it—
  "subject to examination of the Bill".—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 137.]
  We examined the Bill, we asked questions and I propose to tell the Home Secretary how inadequate were the answers that we received, and why, having examined the Bill as I said we would, our conclusion is, and must be in a free society, that the Opposition should vote against it.
  Having said that, I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman why I hoped we could vote for the Bill and why I still wish that that were possible. In our view, the work of the Security Service is best conducted free from political controversy. That is at least part of the reason why the Labour party proposed, and continues to propose, plans
  1114
  which I shall explain in a minute for the supervision of the Security Service by an all-party Committee of the House. But the Home Secretary must understand that to obtain all-party agreement, even on matters for which that is highly desirable, requires something more than the Government making unilateral announcements in the expectation that the Opposition parties will lamely and meekly accept whatever they recommend.
  If, as they claim, the Government really want all-party agreement on security matters, they must make real attempts to accommodate some of the strongly held views of the Opposition parties. This Bill does not even recognise the problems that the Opposition have identified —problems concerning the accountability of the security services, and problems that affect the civil liberties of the nation and the efficiency of the Service. So much was shown again this afternoon by the Home Secretary's reply to my question. He said that the Bill specifically prohibited the service from operating with political bias. When I asked him to justify that from the Bill, he read from a clause that specifically prohibited the service from acting in the interests of a political party. If the Home Secretary cannot distinguish between those two things, he is not fit to be Home Secretary.
  I have never suggested that the Security Service has burnt ballot boxes, forged ballot papers or acted on behalf of Conservative candidates to obtain their success. What I have suggested, and what we all know, is that the Security Service throughout the years has operated in a way that clearly shows a political bias of a much more general but equally damaging sort. We know, for instance, that in the 1970s two great patriots, Lord Scanlon and Mr. Jack Jones, were continually under the surveillance of the security services. I do not believe that even the Security Service of that period could have been so bone-headed as to tap their telephones if it had not been operating under the political bias that assumes that trade union leaders are likely to be subversive.
  That is what we are discussing, not the interests of a political party. That the Home Secretary, with his abilities, should give such an inadequate answer to the question that I raised shows how flimsy is the ground on which he stands—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), whose experience in these matters I respect.
  Mr. Whitney: Is the right hon. Gentleman alleging that the Security Service tapped Mr. Jack Jones' telephone against the orders of the Home Secretary of the day, or deliberately obscured the knowledge of. the Home Secretary of the day, who was a Labour Home Secretary?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am making the allegation that Mr. Jack Jones' telephone was tapped, a matter of general knowledge and comment. I am making the assertion that it should not have been tapped, and that no one would have tapped it who was not so befuddled by political bias that he did not understand the real threat to the country and where the real duties of the Security Service lay.
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall take a few interventions at the beginning, but then follow the Home Secretary's practice and try to get on.
  Mr. Allason: Without wanting to go specifically into the cases of Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that leaders of the trade union movement have often been approached by hostile intelligence services and have reported these approaches to the Security Service, which has conducted operations with their consent?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have no objection to that. What surprises me is that the hon. Gentleman might think that it was in any way relevant to the complaint that I was making about phones being tapped without the permission of the people who owned them.
  I want to emphasise that the Government do not even get close to proposing a scheme of genuine accountability. The Home Secretary made that clear from the start. He said that he was not prepared to countenance the sort of accountability that the Opposition want. But the Bill does not even take a small step in that direction. Certainly, MI5 is to be given a statutory existence, which is progress of a sort. There were times when the Government of the day did not even acknowledge MI5's existence, let alone put it on a statutory basis. The Bill allows Parliament and the public to know no more about the security services than we know today.
  The Bill's provisions will allow Parliament and the public to know nothing more about the Security Service, and it provides no more reassurance about the service's behaviour than we now possess. It is possible to argue, as I shall in a moment, that the Bill's provisions increase the Security Service's power to carry out operations that, in a free society, should be prohibited. The Bill could be used to legalise that which is presently illegal and to legitimise operations that are now wholly illegitimate and should be suppressed.
  Today, MI5 exists in a form that is most clearly set out in Lord Denning's report on the Profumo affair 25 years ago. Lord Denning wrote:
  "The members of the services are, in the eye of the law, ordinary citizens with no powers greater than anyone else. They have no special powers of arrest such as the police have. No special powers of search are given to them. They cannot enter premises without the consent of the householder even though they may suspect a spy is there."
  Despite that view being generally accepted by Governments and by the courts, we know from memoirs, prohibited and allowed, and from studies of the services both independent and Government-inspired, that for years MI5, in the immortal words of Peter Wright,
  "bugged and burgled its way all over London."
  MI5 did so illegally, but in the knowledge that some Governments and some Home Secretaries preferred it to behave like a private army rather than cause the embarrassment that would result from the need for MI5 to obtain explicit ministerial permission to tap a trade union leader's home or to enter the premises of a private citizen, believing him to be assisting the Soviet Union. When the Home Secretary was courteous enough to discuss those matters with me, he agreed that one of the arguments had always been that it is best to keep the service outside the law, because that way, a Minister's hands are kept clean.
  Under clause 1, it will be illegal for the service to take any of the actions that I have mentioned without obtaining the Home Secretary's explicit permission. That could have
  1116
  been a substantial step forward but for the inhibition that, for the Home Secretary's permission to have any force, three requirements must be met. First, the criteria against which the Home Secretary should measure warrant applications should be public, precise and limited. Secondly, Parliament should be empowered to impose a measure of control over the way in which the Home Secretary exercises his powers. Thirdly, a mechanism should be created to ensure that the Security Service does not continue with its old habits and defy the new law by acting without the Home Secretary's warrant.
  Later, I shall examine each of those criteria but before I do so, I make it plain—if the Home Secretary needs that to be done, because he heard the murmurs of agreement from my right hon. and hon. Friends when he mentioned this point—that we accept without qualification that much of the Security Service's work must be kept secret from all except that small group of men and women who, in that famous phrase, need to know how the service conducts itself. What divides the parties is their interpretation of the concept of the need to know.
  We believe that there is a need for a small group of men and women of undoubted probity within Parliament at least to exercise a degree of general supervision of the service. We believe that that is necessary for the service's efficiency, as well as to ensure that it respects the obligations of a free society. Without that scrutiny, the secret service will be able still to act as a private army—the Prime Minister's private army, but a private army nevertheless. Without such scrutiny, the service will still be able to act improperly, without those who are aggrieved receiving proper recompense. Certainly the tribunal provisions in clause 5 will not provide anything like adequate redress.
  In the past, the Government have inevitably chosen, as they have today, to conduct this debate as if MI5 was the best counter-espionage organisation in the free world and that we would be rash to make any radical changes that might in any way tarnish its record of unparalleled efficiency. The implication is that any radical change in the governance of MI5 might put at risk its present levels of performance. In truth, since the the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance. It has a long history of recruiting and promoting Soviet agents, and of wasting its own time and public money pursuing individuals who, by any rational analysis, constituted no threat whatsoever to national security.
  MI5's errors are the errors of inbreeding. Its mistakes are the mistakes of a closed society that does not have to account for the legality or efficiency of its operations. It has often made itself ridiculous, believing that it was above scrutiny. The story of MI5 does not justify acceptance of the suggestion that it will be dangerous to tamper with its record of unequivocal success.
  When the Minister replies, perhaps he will respond to just one example that I can give. It is not from the work of the bitter and discredited Peter Wright, for whom none of us has very much time, but from a monograph produced one year ago by Mr. Anthony Cavendish—a man neither embittered not vindictive, neither impoverished nor prejudiced. It is a monograph written not about the 1950s, which the Home Secretary said were days behind us, but about the 1970s. In that monograph, which was suppressed by the Government, Anthony Cavendish wrote

  1117
  that the Security Service was engaged in plots to destabilise the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  One can look at Mr. Cavendish's story in two ways. If it is true, then MI5 was engaged in treason. If it is not true, then in Mr. Cavendish, it employed and promoted a man who, by making that allegation, demonstrates himself to be at best a liar, and at worst a lunatic. I am inclined to accept the first explanation—that what he wrote was true. Whichever alternative we choose, it does not redound to the credit of MI5's employment and promotion policies.
  Mr. Allason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Anthony Cavendish has never been employed by the Security Service, and that any comments made by him must be purely speculative?
  Mr. Hattersley: If the Government will allow publication of Mr. Cavendish's little book, we shall be a position to contest Mr. Cavendish's judgment on his employment with the judgments of others. Unfortunately, that book is suppressed. Since that was done without Mr. Cavendish ever being a member of the Security Service, it raises considerable questions about the justification for suppressing it in the first place.
  I emphasise that making the Security Service more accountable would improve its efficiency, as well as ensuring that it plays a role consistent with existing democracy. From time to time, we are told that parliamentary control of the kind that we seek will undermine—
  Mr. Heffer; How does the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) know who is employed by the Security Service? Is he a member of the Security Service? Does he have more information than any other right hon. or hon. Member? We are entitled to know from where his information comes.
  Mr. Allason: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene again, I can give his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) the answer to his question.
  Mr. Hattersley: No, because I want to deal with the real world, and not with the world that is inhabited by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in one guise or another, or under one name or another.
  I wish to explain why we insist on arguing for parliamentary control. I shall deal with the argument, which is inevitably and invariably made, that to allow a measure of parliamentary control will undermine the confidence of our partners and allies in the operation of the service. I know the Government's preoccupation with that subject. I vividly recall telling the Foreign Secretary that I would be very surprised if the Soviet Union did not know at least as much about the Zircon satellite as was to be published in the New Statesman the following day. The Foreign Secretary's reply was that that was all very well, but that the Americans were disturbed by the incidence of such leaks.
  Of course, the Americans have a security system controlled by a Senate committee which publishes its budget. It has an operational head whose name appears in the papers and whose address appears in the telephone directory. I do not suggest for a moment, no matter what the Home Secretary may pretend, that we can take the American system and spatchcock it on ours. Experience in
  1118
  Washington suggests, however, that the sort of control that we propose is not invariably less efficient than a system that provides no parliamentary accountability. All the problems described by the Home Secretary—whether the few people allowed inside the net of secrecy would tell too much or tell too little; whether it would produce less satisfaction; whether it would produce intolerable pressure on the head of the service—all those problems are overcome in Washington, and I believe that with good will they could be overcome here.
  From time to time the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary insist that as they are, between them and in a not very clearly defined fashion, Ministers responsible for the Civil Service, parliamentary accountability exists. It is there, manifested by them. It is provided through the answers that they give the House on the subject. 1t was, indeed, an answer by the Prime Minister that, as much as anything else, convinced me that we would not support the Bill. She told the House that there would still be accountability, because she would be accountable. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) asked in what form that accountability would be exercised, she replied:
  "In precisely the same way as the Home Secretary and myself have always been accountable to the House".—[Official Report, 22 November 1988; Vol. 141, c. 26.]
  We know what that usual way is. All of us who have been Ministers dealing with such matters have given exactly the same answers to questions about security as the Prime Minister gave every time that she was asked. Her answer is that she does not answer. The Prime Minister is accountable in the sense that she is the Minister responsible for refusing to answer the questions. I think that even the Home Secretary will concede that that is a very limited definition of parliamentary accountability. The Bill should have provided something new and something better.
  Mr. John Greenway: What?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have been saying what for the last 10 minutes, but I will gladly repeat it. The Bill should provide for a Committee of the House with a general supervisory power.
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I will give way to the Home Secretary after I have said this to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway): for him to hear a case based on that requirement for 20 minutes and then, when the subject is raised, to shout, "What?" says something about either his attention or his intelligence. But we shall see whether the Home Secretary can do better.
  Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has sketched his proposal for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly the contradiction hidden within it. On the one hand, he admits the need for secrecy over actual operations and says that what is required is some general oversight. On the other hand, he claims that that general oversight will prevent abuse in a particular operation. Both cannot be correct.
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall do my best to demonstrate why the Home Secretary is wrong. Let me take an example—the creation of police authorities. We have never believed that a police authority is supposed to be involved in the day-to-day operation and decisions of inspectors,

  1119
  chief constables and superintendents, but we believe that the existence of that authority is in itself a countervailing power against unreasonable operations. This is exactly the same principle. If the Home Secretary will bear with me for a moment, I shall try to give an example of what I mean.
  We believe that real accountability can come about only if and when the three criteria that I have set out are properly observed. Those three criteria are a concise and acceptable definition of when action by the Security Service can be authorised, a real check on how the Home Secretary exercises his right to issue warrants and a mechanism that ensures that the Security Service does not act outside its lawful powers.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is all in the Bill.
  Mr. Hattersley: We are going to examine the criteria in a minute, if the Minister of State will contain himself.
  The criteria against which the Home Secretary's action must be judged are set out, as the Minister of State so perceptively said, in clause 3 of the Bill. They are set out in a form that is vague to the point of vacuity. That which may be authorised is
  "entry on or interference with property".
  "Interference" can mean virtually anything. I confess that I spent a happy hour yesterday evening looking through my Shakespeare concordance at all the alternative meanings that one English poet has given the word. I shall not give them all, but "interference" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Obviously it means breaking and entering; presumably it also means the expropriation of property and the planting of monitoring devices. Unfortunately it could mean a good deal more. There is clearly no legal limit to what could be justified by the word "interference".
  The rest of the clause is drawn just as widely. First, action is justified when the Home Secretary "thinks it necessary". There is no need for him to justify that view; he need only hold it. The information that the interference with property is intended to obtain must be
  "of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge any of its functions".
  The breadth of that definition—"any of its functions"—is clear only when we examine the functions of the service as set out in clause 1.
  Clause 1 defines the function of the service as
  "the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of…foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political [or] industrial… means."
  Some newspapers have placed much emphasis on the word "particular", but I believe that with or without that word the clause gives the security services the right to do whatever they choose. I cannot imagine any circumstance that is not covered by that subsection. It is made up of word after word that has only subjective meaning. How is a threat defined? Who decides that the intention was to overthrow or undermine? The answer to all those questions is the Security Service itself, or perhaps the Home Secretary.
  Mr. William Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: I will not give way any more.
  1120
  Neither the Home Secretary nor the Security Service is a suitable arbiter in this instance. If clause 1(2) is dangerous, clause 1(3) is simultaneously dangerous and absurd. MI5 is enjoined to
  "safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  How are we to define economic threats posed by persons outside the United Kingdom? At present a great controversy surrounds the Sultan of Brunei and the pressures which, it is alleged, were exerted on him, together with inducements, to keep his sterling balances in London. In those circumstances, would MI5 have been justified in tapping the Sultan's telephone to find out whether it was his intention to move his sterling balances?
  I hope that at least we can be assured that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes abroad and agrees—at the New York Plaza, let us say—to damage the British economy with policies of high interest rates, MI5 will not be entitled to "interfere with his property". But in the strict context of the Bill, applying the words in a literal sense, there is no reason why it should not do so.
  No doubt the Home Secretary will argue that despite such vacuous definitions we can rely on the whole business being kept in check by his exercise of moderate and reasonable authority. He will insist that he will do only what is right, and that may well be the case.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  It is certainly not my intention to impugn the Home Secretary's integrity, but the power provided for him in the Bill is unchecked and should not be given to any Minister. The Home Secretary has not been appointed in perpetuity. The power to authorise action at once so important to the national interest and so offensive to civil liberties ought to be exercised only by a Minister who is himself subject to supervision. The Bill does not provide adequate supervision through the tribunal, and therefore fails the second of my criteria.
  In any event, it is very difficult for the Secretary of State alone to exercise effective control over the security services. His role will become the same sort of legal fiction as his theoretical position as the police authority for London, which amounts to little more than requiring him to endorse decisions taken by others.
  Let the House imagine that at 9.45 am today the Home Secretary was about to leave for the Cabinet meeting, carrying with him the draft of the speech that he intended to make this afternoon, that he was suddenly presented with an application for a warrant and that he was told that the security services needed to "interfere" with somebody's property before noon. I believe that in those circumstances the Home Secretary needs some countervailing force to exert alternative pressure from that which would certainly be exerted by the security services in favour of immediate and unthinking action. The commission, operating behind a wall of secrecy in every sense of that word, cannot exert anything like effective pressure.
  Several Hon. Members: Absolute rubbish.
  Mr. Hind: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.

  1121
  The only effective countervailing force is a Committee of this House.
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Home Secretary wants to speak. I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Hurd: Would a Committee of this House have examined that application between 9.45 and 10 am today?
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that a Committee might consider the application if the aggrieved person wished to do so. I do not suggest for a moment that a Committee of this House should examine every action of the security services. I said so a few moments ago when I drew a parallel between the Committee that should control the behaviour of the police. It is crucial that a Committee of this House is able to deal with the complaints of an individual who says that he has been aggrieved. That is the purpose of the tribunal. It is that purpose which we believe the tribunal cannot properly fulfil.
  The third criterion concerns the necessity to ensure that the security services, with their deplorable record in this particular, do not continue, despite the new legal framework, to act unlawfully. That assurance can be provided only by an official secrets Act that does not allow their covert activities permanently to be protected, whether they are lawful or unlawful. Yet we know, from the new Official Secrets Bill, that we are to debate next week, that everything that the security services do must remain an official secret. To reveal it in any circumstances will be an offence. If MI5 bugs and burgles without warrant, anybody who reveals that he has broken the law is himself or herself breaking the law. The aura of secrecy with which the Bill that is to be debated next week surrounds the security services disqualifies the Bill from our support.
  It also reduces—this is the point that I was struggling to make to the Home Secretary—the tribunal's effectiveness when investigating complaints. I refer to the tribunal that is to be established under clause 5. During the debate on the Loyal Address I asked two specific questions about the tribunal: first, whether there was any appeal against its decisions and, secondly, whether its decisions could be questioned in court. The Minister of State replied to neither of those questions. I assumed that that was because he did not know the answers. I realise now that it was because he knew the answers. The tribunal's judgment cannot be questioned in court. There is no appeal against the tribunal's decision. It is farcical to suggest that, for an aggrieved party, that can be considered to be a safeguard that is comparable to supervision by a Committee of this House.
  Those parts of the Bill that deal with the powers and duties of the commission and tribunal, both clauses and schedules, show how little restraint and protection those two institutions will provide. The obvious example is paragraph 3 of schedule 1. If a man or woman complains that the security services have given information to a prospective employer, the tribunal may examine whether the information is accurate. However, the real cause of complaint is not the accuracy of the information but the propriety of information about a free individual being passed from hand to hand. To examine that great abuse—the principle of improper vetting—is not within the tribunal's capabilities.
  1122
  The idea that such a scheme should provide adequate recompense for offending citizens or adequate protection against wrongdoing is absurd. Against the background of a system that is cloaked in complete secrecy and of a definition of powers that gives absolute discretion to the Home Secretary, the tribunal becomes no more than window dressing.
  In some ways, the Bill is window dressing from start to finish. We know—the Home Secretary confirmed it to me—that the security services wanted the Bill. I have no doubt that at last they have become conscious of the enormous and unjustified criticisms that have been recently directed towards them and that they decided that a minimum legal framework, which allowed them to operate much as they had done before, was the best way to avoid a continual campaign for greater efficiency and genuine accountability.
  I want to assure the Home Secretary that a campaign to improve the performance and to increase the accountability of the security services will not go away. We shall continue to argue for a system of parliamentary scrutiny. Until we achieve it, we shall continue to press the Home Secretary properly to discharge the duties which—
  Mr. William Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  We shall continue to press him properly to discharge the duties that, because of this Bill, he has been able to pretend he has acquired. We shall try to question him, but he will no doubt refuse to answer—as is the practice and convention. When next there is a security scandal we shall attempt to hold him responsible, but he will no doubt say that that is not a proper subject for debate in this House. He will simply refer to the clauses that demonstrate that anything he has approved is lawful. That response will only hasten the day when we have a proper Security Service that is under proper control and proper supervision.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was quite convinced, at the end of it, of two things: either that he knows very little about the subject or that he does not want a Security Service in this country. He sought in every way to undermine what the Security Service is bound to do.
  I have a few points to make about the Bill, which I believe is extremely important for the safety of every individual in this country. The Bill is timely. There are details that need to be looked at, but it gets the answers about right.
  What stands out is the relevance, the succinctness and the clarity of the original Maxwell Fyfe directive that was drawn up by a former Labour Government. It is still relevant today, 36 years later, except in one respect: that it is not a statutory provision. That is what the Bill intends to put right.
  It is interesting to dwell for a moment on why it has taken so long since the second world war for the Security Service to be placed on a statutory basis, in place of the directive to the Director-General of the Security Service on his appointment by the Home Secretary. This country believes, more than any other country, in a free society. It

  1123
  has shed as much blood as any other country to destroy the worst police states in our history. Incidentally, this country has had Labour Governments for almost 19 of the 36 years since the Maxwell Fyfe directive. For nearly 23 years since the second world war, there have been Tory Governments.
  Why has it taken so long to place the Security Service on a statutory basis? The answer must be significant. The reason is the long-standing belief of no fewer than nine Prime Ministers —three of whom were Labour and six Tory—their senior permanent secretaries and a number of senior distinguished judges that Britain's Security Service, however imperfect, was best safeguarded by the Maxwell Fyfe directive. It was not until the treacheries of Blunt and others were revealed, and certain dubious revelations of illegality by worthless creatures such as Wright, and the genuine telephone tapping incident, that the requirement of a statutory basis appeared on the menu. In my view, not least of the reasons was the need for the improvement of morale and well-being among those who staffed the service and had done so for a long time.
  I entirely disagree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, as I consider that the legality issue is faced squarely and set down in clause 3. It is nothing new. Many of us in younger days had to be trained in security matters for previous emergencies. I can certainly vouch for the emphasis placed on the individual's responsibility for acting lawfully at all times, if necessary through the authority of the warrant system. Hence a close relationship has always been maintained with the police authorities. If all those lurid stories that sell so well on the bookstalls are true, the individuals have not been acting lawfully. If they have not been acting lawfully, they are on their own, as any individual in Britain who does not act lawfully is on his own.
  If nothing else, what is spelt out in clause 3 must be a confidence-building exercise, in that the Security Service must act lawfully at all times, throughout the warrant system which is also scrutinised by the Commissioner for the Security Service as is laid down in the Bill. That is what we have to aim for.
  As for the contentious matter of parliamentary oversight, I believe that it would be totally wrong and would be harmful to the security of British people and must be rejected. A year or two ago, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the very good description, "those inside and those outside the barriers of secrecy". He was then quoted by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. In cases of security, those inside the barriers of secrecy must be limited to the fewest possible people. The idea of matters of secrecy being open to the members of a Select Committee, however eminent and responsible they are, increases enormously the risk of secrecy being blown. That is why those who remain inside the barriers of secrecy must be as few as possible.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boscawen: No. I shall speak for a short time, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I must get on.
  More than anyone else, those with the continuous burden of the highest responsibility of office must be inside
  1124
  the barrier of secrecy. They would be the Prime Minister and I understand, for administrative reasons, the Home Secretary. For reasons which we have heard, the Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for issuing the warrants and is answerable for that. I do not believe that it is sensible or wise to spread information and secrecy on what the Security Service is doing, particularly in its operational duties, beyond those two Ministers.
  Ex-Home Secretaries, ex-Law Officers and ex-senior Cabinet Ministers, however eminent in office, are different animals without their official pressures. They are under different pressures, often of a highly competitive nature, inside the House. Many of them are working to regain office. That is their duty. Many of them are working hard outside the House on other personal matters. I do not believe that they are the right animals to hold the tremendously responsible position inside the House of scrutinising and overseeing the Security Service.
  In my humble position as an ex-Whip—after 10 years in the Whips Office, where one has the opportunity to observe human nature in the House—I certainly do not have the confidence that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and some other Opposition Members have in their colleagues to maintain the enormous responsibility of secrecy that would be required of them if they were to be in charge of overseeing the Security Service.
  Finally, if a Select Committee was in the know, as my right hon. Friend pointed out many times, what could its members reveal to their colleagues if they had misgivings about what was going on? They could go only to the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary of the day and tell them about their misgivings. They could go to no one else, so what advantage would there be to the House and to Back Bench Members on both sides? It is a foolish proposal. It is significant that, in all its years in government, the Labour party never sought parliamentary control of the Security Service when faced with the realities of office.
  The Security Service depends on the morale of those who give long years of toil within the barriers of secrecy. On it depends the better defence of freedom from the violence for political ends in Britain that is so close to us today. It is vital that nothing in the Bill undermines the value of the Security Service to the safety of our country.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) and other Conservative Members have suggested that what we are proposing, or the outcome of our proposals, would be unfair to the Security Service or to people working within it. However, there have been gross injustices to people in the service in the past, in particular because of the way in which some accusations have been made in recent years.
  There could not be any more serious charges against a man of distinction who served the Security Service than the charges that were made against Roger Hollis. Those charges were investigated a number of times. I remember the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box announcing to the House that all the investigations had shown that the charges were quite false and quite misleading. None the less, charges against Roger Hollis continue. They have been taken up by Peter Wright—although some of us do not pay much attention to him—and Chapman Pincher,

  1125
  who is occasionally given special favours by various Governments for his work. It is grossly unfair that the charges against Roger Hollis continue.
  Anthony Cavendish who I believe was employed by the Security Service, tried to come to the aid of Roger Hollis to defend his good name, but his information was suppressed. It is unwise and improper, and it does not serve the House of Commons and the nation, if that happens. The present system can be grossly unfair to former servants of the Crown. People such as Roger Hollis can be maligned in a scandalous way without any successful repudiation of the charges. I am not complaining about the Prime Minister's actions—she tried to come to the defence of Roger Hollis at one stage—but members of the Hollis family have a right to feel outraged by what was said about him and about the fact that there was insufficient right to reply.
  The Home Secretary said that he would not enter into details about the past. I can well understand that, but obviously the Bill has been introduced because of some of the events of the past. If the Government were as content as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome with what happened in the past, there would not have been any purpose in their coming forward with the Bill. They have been in a dilemma about whether to present the Bill as a great reform or as a measure that will not make much difference. The Home Secretary has done his best to make the Bill more than it is. He has tried to present this fig leaf of a Bill as though it were a virility symbol of Freudian proportions. However, the Bill has very little in it and will not make much difference to the way that the security services operate. That is one of our complaints.
  We have serious complaints about what has been revealed in the recent past. There has been nothing like sufficient investigation or explanation, especially about Peter Wright's revelations and many others. It is all very well the Government saying that they will not go into past matters, that it is a matter of history and has nothing to do with the present, but those past matters are the background to the Bill. If it had not been for all the past events, the Government would not have proceeded with the legislation. In saying that he will not go into past events, the Home Secretary is saying that he will not be going into the reasons for the Bill. There is grave suspicion about the Government's actions because they have steadfastly refused to inquire into the revelations.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, as late as 14 February this year, the Sunday Express devoted most of its front page to a photograph which had been released to it by the security services, smearing a former Labour Minister, Lord Diamond? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a test of the new spirit of frankness which is alleged to be abroad if, in summing up, the Minister were to tell us who leaked that photograph and why?
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I should be happy to hear a reply by the Government, although I doubt whether they will attempt to do anything of that kind. If the Government will not give us any information about some of the matters which have been discussed throughout the country over the past year and a half, I doubt whether they will come forward with any information to answer my hon. Friend's questions.
  1126
  A Government who have done what this Government have done over the past year and a half cannot wash their hands of the matter. We might have looked on the Bill with more favour if the Government had had a splendid record of defending civil liberties at every turn, of showing great sensitivity to threats to bring injunctions against newspapers and of introducing novelty in the scale of security operations. We have not had such a Government. The Government have engaged in peppering and pestering the newspapers with injunctions on a scale never seen before. The Home Secretary laughed about that, and perhaps some newspapers deserve to have their stories stopped, but I doubt whether that is a proper way for a free country and Government to operate.
  The Government have refused to allow any investigation into Peter Wright's revelations and the associated revelations. The Prime Minister may say that she is weary of these issues. I have had long correspondence with her over the past year or so. When revelations were made in the Wright book about the attempted action against the Labour Government—the primary matter in the book—and other matters, I believed that it was of paramount importance that inquiries should have been made. The revelation about the Suez plan prepared by the Secret Service for the assassination of President Nasser was important, if it were true. Even if it were not, it was still important. We did not have a proper inquiry into that matter.
  Only recently, judges have pronounced on the way in which the Government behaved. I am glad that some emphasised how seriously they regarded such allegations and said why it was necessary, to have some means to investigate these matters properly. Up until the present, the Government have refused to have any investigation into those charges. Now the Home Secretary tells us that he is going ahead with this legislation, and the other legislation which will be introduced next week, without giving an answer to the House of Commons about any of the revelations.
  Mr. Allason: I know that the right hon. Gentleman likes to keep up to date in these matters. Is he aware that Peter Wright has admitted on television that his tale of a conspiracy against the Labour Government was sheer fiction?
  Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is so inaccurate in his reporting of facts in his books as he is in the House of Commons, we shall have to watch carefully what he writes. He has misreported even Mr. Peter Wright. I fully understand that there are often good reasons for not treating Mr. Peter Wright with great respect.
  The Government have been engaged in great efforts across the world, at great cost to the reputation of senior civil servants and of the law. The Wright case eventually was tried in this country. The judges' verdicts are a judgment of the way in which the Government behaved throughout the proceedings and a judgment of the case that they were asked to try. These matters cannot be brushed away as easily as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) or anyone else has suggested. It is a great mistake that the Government have never held inquiries. So long as they refuse to do so, the matters will continue rumbling.
  The Government's excuse over many months when the case was before the courts was that they could not act

  1127
  because it was sub judice. Again, the Prime Minister was possibly saying that we cannot have an inquiry because it may injure the operation of the secret services. Today, the House is asked to proceed to decide on what we shall do in future without any of the information or proper investigation that we would normally have for any other section of the nation's affairs.
  The Home Secretary sought to reply to my right hon. Friend's proposals for proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that will become the overwhelming question for discussion. The House of Commons is a much more powerful and versatile place than the Government give it credit for. We hear Conservative Members, including Front Bench Members, especially the Prime Minister, talking as if the House is not fit to do these jobs and cannot adapt itself to carry out the proper work of surveillance over a security system. I am not saying that we should have exactly the same system as the Americans, but if they had had the same system as we have, absolute secrecy, all the revelations about their arms dealings with Iran would never have been revealed.
  It would have greatly injured the relationships of the Western world if the Americans had been allowed to sell arms to terrorists without anybody knowing that they were doing so and if there had been no investigation. It would have greatly weakened the whole democratic world if the United States had not had the investigative methods that operated there, whether or not they were initiated partly by the newspapers and were operated through a Congress which had some sort of machinery. I am not saying that we should have exactly that machinery— naturally, we must adapt it for ourselves—but it is nonsense to say that the House of Commons cannot devise methods for dealing with these matters.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to tell the House if, when he was a member of Labour Cabinets, he urged on his fellow Cabinet members the parliamentary mechanism for oversight which he is now recommending, or is that a secret within the Labour party?
  Mr. Foot: That is not a secret. The proposal for a parliamentary surveillance of these matters was not one that I raised in Cabinet, but there is strong case for it. All the evidence and outpourings of the activities about the security services in recent years confirm the good case that my right hon. Friend has made.
  Yesterday there was some talk about insults to the country. It is an insult to the House of Commons to say that we cannot devise a proper method for dealing with the Security Service and making it properly answerable. If anybody says that cannot be done, my advice is to look back at the ways in which the House of Commons in times of extreme danger has decided that it can waive rules or devise machinery to investigate dangerous affairs of this kind. That should have been done when the Peter Wright revelations were coming out.
  During the first world war, a Select Committee was set up to inquire into why there had been such a catastrophe at Gallipoli and to take evidence from many different quarters about the reasons for it. The strength of the House during that war was partly because it devised a means by which it could discuss even such secret matters
  1128
  as the operations that led to the Gallipoli disaster and partly because it learned lessons from that. Some people at the time said, "You cannot allow a Committee of the House to inquire into these matters; they are much too secret in wartime," but fortunately for the nation, an inquiry was carried out. It was one of the most important inquiries in the war in changing the way that people looked at the conduct of the war.
  During the second world war—I watched from the Gallery—the House of Commons inquired into many matters. It even had secret sittings. Some Members did not like that. It is incredible to think of a secret sitting with almost every Member present. It discussed matters of the utmost importance. Some thought that if different views were taken, it could give some advantage to the enemy. But others thought that it was much more important that the Government should establish their good faith before other hon. Members and that that risk should be taken. They thought that it was much more important that Ministers should be called to account and should give answers.
  Churchill, who knew something about these matters, was prepared to act in that way. He had secret committees on many matters, inquiring into questions infinitely more sensitive than many of those covered by the Security Services. If both this Bill and next week's Bill are carried, no future Churchills will write their memoirs. If ever the historical writings of any great figure in this House were stuffed with official secrets—I bet that not every one was vetted and passed—they were Churchill's. He thought that he had a better idea of what was an official secret than any officious security officer who might tell him otherwise, and that is often the case. Above all, Churchill was answerable to this House, and he trusted it.
  Even in the much lesser event of the Falklands war, it was necessary that there should be a proper inquiry into how the country got into the war. The Prime Minister was not eager that it should be the size that it was. She thought that we must have a smaller inquiry because it would be a bit dangerous to have as many as six or seven Members of Parliament investigating. Some of us persuaded her—she is not always easy to persuade—that she must have a committee that could both inquire and command the confidence of the House. If it was to have the confidence of the House, it could not consist of one or two hon. Members; it had to be a bit larger. Some of us thought that it might have been a bit larger still.
  A great deal of secret information and information about security, and many official secrets went before that committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was on that committee and will vouch for what I am saying. If that evidence had not been available, the report would have been worthless. It is not the case that this House cannot devise means of dealing with these questions.
  During recent weeks and months, the Government have taken measures on a series of events to restrict the freedoms that we have previously accepted as natural, which we have taken for granted. I shall not go through the whole long list, but they include the proposed interference with the right to silence, interference with the rights of people to report terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the introduction of an identity card system. There is a list of different measures which infringe some of our elementary rights.

  1129
  Nobody believes that those matters, including some of the provisions in the two Bills on this subject, are the outcome of the cool analysis or—what was the phrase of the Home Secretary?—the "cool consideration" of the Home Office and the Government. They are not. They are the result of the paranoid spasms of the Prime Minister. She comes along and says, "We must settle these questions in a particular way overnight, whatever the objections, criticisms and obstacles." The Home Secretary's way of dealing with these questions over the years has been governed much more by that factor than by any so-called cool consideration of all the factors involved. I hope that that pressure will be sustained.
  I have not the slightest doubt that eventually the House will have enough dignity and determination to establish over the security services the right that we have over every other activity in this country—the right of surveillance. It can be done without injuring the nation's security or the way in which it conducts its affairs. All that is needed is for hon. Members to have a little confidence in this institution, which still has the power and capacity to adapt itself to any such needs.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) put his finger on a curious paradox that is one of the central weaknesses of the Bill. He said that the Bill has come into existence only because of past events. Looking forward to the future—remembering, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, what a "small fig leaf' the Bill is—there is little hope that future events will be handled differently. It is to that central weakness that I shall devote most of my attention.
  I should like to give the Bill a qualified welcome. It is a sensible initiative to place the Security Service on a statutory basis for the first time in its 80-year history. When such a first attempt to legislate is made, it is perfectly natural that there should be some unease and debate about whether the activities of the Security Service, as defined in the Bill, infringe civil liberties. That unease, which has come mainly from the Opposition, would largely have been alleviated if the Bill had been drafted better. Sometimes parliamentarians criticise the Foreign Office for making a mess of legislation because it has so little experience of bringing Bills before the House. Poor old MI5 has had no experience of bringing legislation before the House, so perhaps it is not surprising that, by professional standards, the Bill has been poorly drafted and has many grave flaws.
  If one wanted to choose a fundamental flaw in the drafting regarding the lack of political interference by the Security Service, one could do no better than make a comparison with the rather splendid words of the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952. Paragraph 4, which deals with political interference, says:
  "It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence, and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community or with any matter other than the Defence of the Realm as a whole."
  Those words have a splendid ring to them and compare favourably with the extremely modest sentence in clause 2(2)(b), which asks the director-geneal to ensure
  "that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  1130
  A quite different dimension of restraint of the Security Service is contained in the Bill than that contained in the famous Maxwell Fyfe directive. I dare say that we shall tidy up much of the drafting in Committee.
  The big issue in the Bill, which is the first in the history of the Security Service, is probably not civil liberties but the confidence, effectiveness, efficiency and judgment of the Security Service. The Bill should be judged by what it does to improve, enhance and strengthen the Security Service, which is certainly needed in today's world. Judged by that test, the Bill is extremely disappointing.
  There are many omissions in the Bill and many opportunities have been lost. The most recent controversy was the Wright brouhaha. Most observers agree that it probably would not have happened if only MI5 had had a decent and fair system of pensions. If Mr. Wright had had a pension, none of this Niagara falls of information would have fallen into the public domain. It is unlikely that many revelations from former employees of the service would have reached the ears of journalists and authors if there had been a clear contractual responsibility by which pensions could be lost following breaches of trust or disclosure of information. The Bill completely misses the opportunity to deal with possible restrictions, definitions or fairer treatment of pensions.
  The Home Secretary tackled the subject of oversight very feebly indeed. When he came to this part of his speech, he tried to dismiss the Canadian experience as only four years old, the Australian experience as too new and the American experience as of no relevance. He continuously dodged the fact that we are the only democracy in the English-speaking world that has no system not merely of parliamentary oversight—it is perfectly true that there can be more than one view of this— but any system of independent oversight whatsoever. He did not admit—why should he reveal a state secret, but I will do so—that three successive directors-general of the Security Service have supported independent oversight of some type for the Security Service.
  Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend saying that a judge is not independent oversight? Surely a judge is.
  Mr. Aitken: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understands what is meant by "oversight". Oversight, in the sense that it is used by security services in other parts of the world, is some form of continuous monitoring body. It monitors not whether the right warrant was issued for the right telephone tap but whether the structure and operations of the service are being correctly, efficiently and most effectively carried out. At present, that function is exercised by Ministers, which is what they mean when they talk about oversight.
  To some extent, I embarrassed the Government the other day, when the Home Secretary was at his peak of reminding us how wonderfully effective oversight by the Prime Minister and himself would be in the future. I quoted from the last ministerial statement made on oversight seven years ago by the then Home Office Minister, Dr. Shirley Summerskill. I will not bore the House by repeating it, but the gist of it was, "We have a completely new oversight mechanism, which has been strengthened and is working perfectly; Ministers are doing a wonderful job, and although there have been faults in the past, you can trust us and we will do oversight splendidly."

  1131
  That is the same old gramophone record that the Home Secretary played today and during the debate on the Gracious Speech.
  However, the extraordinary catalogue of blunders, mismanagement and outbreaks of chaos which followed that statement shows that ministerial oversight failed, for the simple reason that Ministers were too preoccupied and too busy to give the continuous attention that is needed. The fight for oversight of the Security Service will not end with this Bill; it will be a continuous process, whether it be parliamentary oversight or independent oversight by a body such as the Falklands committee. That committee kept its secrets very well, and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent reminded us that the House can perfectly well keep secrets at times of great national importance or on issues of substance.
  Nothing in the Bill will improve the management, efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service or ensure that it devotes its efforts to the right targets by the right methods. It is no secret that the Security Service has not been well managed in recent years. There are times whey it has been spectacularly badly managed. There have been five directors-general within a decade, which is an astonishing turnover in the world of counter-intelligence, where a long perspective is often needed.
  Some of the Security Service's recruitment methods are out of the Boy's Own Paper days. No commercial organisation could have recruited, promoted and failed to detect an erratic, alcoholic and social misfit like Michael Bettaney. Even the expurgated version of the security commissioner's report on Michael Bettaney, published in 1985, was one of the most scathing indictments of the quality of management of any Government organisation this century.
  We are told that, since Bettaney, everything has been improved. That is true to some extent. Sir Antony Duff, an outsider from the Security Service, made certain significant changes. As a result of his influence, all MI5 employees were given a 10 per cent. pay increase over and above the normal Civil Service increments, to pay them for their enhanced responsibilities —a new reward structure, which, incidentally, Ministers have never disclosed to Parliament. Sir Antony Duff then insisted that there should be a major shift of resources from counter-intelligence and subversion towards fighting terrorism. That was a wise move.
  Here again—this is why Parliament should debate such issues—a caveat should be entered since Sir Antony Duff s retirement. We all agree that fighting terrorism is extremely important, but some experienced international observers fear that, with their understandably deep concern for terrorism, the present Government may not have got the balance quite right in the allocation of resources. There is a somewhat simplistic view in the Security Service today that, in this age of glasnost and perestroika, it is safe to lower our guard against Soviet penetration and subversion so that we may raise our guard against Irish terrorism. That view is not shared by intelligence experts on the other side of the Atlantic, who, incidentally, are refreshing easy to consult, in comparison with how difficult or impossible it is to get near their British equivalents.
  1132
  I draw the attention of the House to a speech by Mr. Robert M. Gates, the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to the Association of Former Intelligence Officers on 15 October. He said:
  "Since Gorbachev's accession to power, the hostile intelligence threat against the US has grown. Over the past three years we have discovered more penetrations of US defence and intelligence activities than at any time in our history… Despite improved US-Soviet relations there has been an increase this year in Soviet attempts to recruit US sources. I believe the recent choice of Vladimir Kryuchov to be chairman of the KGB will mean an intensification of Soviet intelligence efforts of the US and its allies."
  If Deputy Director Gates of the CIA is right about the increased intensification of KGB activities and the increased spending on the KGB by the Soviet Government, it suggests that our Security Service may be getting its priorities wrong.
  Mr. Whitney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence by our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee made precisely the same point as Mr. Gates? Therefore, we must assume—neither my hon. Friend nor I know—that that information, which apparently is in the possession of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is also in the possession of other security agencies, and that they are taking appropriate action to deal with it. Why does my hon. Friend impute such ignorance or lack of wisdom to our colleagues on the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend knows much more about this subject than I do. The judgment of priorities and the assessment of threats and macro-political judgments of the kind that we are talking about, is certainly not something that MI5 has done particularly well in the past. My view of MI5 is that, on the whole, it has done its best to do a decent, honest, patriotic, plodding job. The tone of MI5 is the tone of sound mediocrity, often touched with an inferiority complex about its cousins at MI6.
  The retired military and police personnel who are so present in MI5 ranks are not the stuff of which deep thinkers are made, yet deep thinking is required on certain aspects of the Bill. The Bill appears to enlarge the role of MI5 and let its officers into new areas in which the qualities of intellect, expertise and specialist knowledge will be required on a scale not hitherto observed at the Curzon street headquarters.
  I draw the attention of the House, as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to the dramatic expansion of MI5's activities as defined in clause 1(3):
  "It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  Unless that is a quite spectacular piece of bad drafting, it means something very different from what MI5 has done in the past. What does it mean? The mind boggles. It has gone way beyond the Maxwell Fyfe directive. Is MI5 to monitor speculators against sterling? Is it to place the gnomes of Zurich under surveillance? Will Smiley be sent off to the souks of Cairo to make sure that another "Hero from Zero" does not grab hold of Harrods? Is Bulldog Drummond to be sent to the Mexican fastness of Sir James Goldsmith to make sure he is not cornering the market on salmonella-free eggs? What does it mean?
  It certainly means that a new type of employee is to be required for MI5 to monitor overseas people who are

  1133
  posing threats to the economic well-being of this country—LSE professors— [interruption.]—yuppies, as my hon. Friend says, and certainly fiscal wizards.
  When I made a few discreet inquiries about what the clause could mean, I was given the impression that I had got it wrong and that it was to do with offshore oil rigs which needed protection, and about the Channel tunnel. That would be confirmed by the rather curious reference to the "British Islands". If that is the case, it is an appalling piece of parliamentary draftsmanship to have a clause which is meant to refer to offshore installations such as oil rigs and the Channel tunnel all mixed up in economic well-being overseas.
  It is not a well drafted Bill. Large parts of it are about cosmetics. Clauses 4 and 5 are a couple of sledgehammers to crack nuts. They envisage the appointment of a high judicial officer as a commissioner, three or four lawyers as a complaints tribunal, and a tribunal staff of 12 officers, at a cost of £360,000 a year.
  What will they all do? After all, in the 80 years since the Security Service was founded, few real complaints about extra-judicial activities have surfaced, except in the suspect works of Peter Wright. The few genuine ones such as Cathy Massiter's complaint may not be directed at MI5 at all. It is common knowledge that MI5 had great internal doubts and debates about monitoring the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but instructions from higher up made it do it. There is no way that the tribunal will criticise MI5 for carrying out what it was properly asked to do.
  Be that as it may, I doubt whether this expensive apparatus will find more than one genuine complaint that it can uphold in the course of a year. Of course it will have complaints from plenty of nutters, paranoiacs and anti-MI5 obsessives, but it will get rid of them pretty quickly, and then it will have no real job. The tribunal will be a sort of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
  That brings me to my real grumble about the Bill and the Official Secrets Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to launch next week. There are scores of missed opportunities—certainly in this Bill. There is no oversight, no real reform of the Security Service, no management improvements, and no real expansion of citizens' rights. There is a hollow cosmetic touch to the Bill, once one has welcomed the basic, genuine legal change. It reminded me of the great speech of Lord Randolph Churchill about Mr. Gladstone whom he criticised in 1884 for chopping down trees as his recreation, particularly the famous passage which begins with the words
  "The forest laments in order that Mr. Gladstone may perspire."
  Having perspired, Mr. Gladstone handed out chips as symbols of what he was doing in his wood cutting.
  The Home Secretary's policies are similar. The commissioner is a chip for the civil liberties lobby. The tribunal is a chip for lawyers. Sir Philip Woodfield, the staff counsellor, is a chip to the young Turks inside the service who did not like the idea of not being able to report Mr. Bettaney, even when he was drunk and on fire, as unworthy. The legal status is a chip to appease the European Court of Human Rights. It is chips, chips, chips. The Home Secretary is good at those chips and cosmetics, but this is not a lasting reform of substance. Parliament will not be gainsaid indefinitely and fobbed off
  1134
  permanently with no oversight. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights will be back on some of the civil liberty issues.
  As a first step, the Bill is not entirely useless, and for that reason I shall vote for it. However, although it is some progress, it is a story of missed opportunities, and I have grave reservations about it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and to agree with almost every word that he has said. He was right to focus on the inadequacy of the Bill in strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Service, as well to allude to the infringements of civil rights which, undoubtedly, the Bill will do little to remove and, indeed, may make it more difficult to identify.
  I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting against the Bill, however, because it has failed on three counts. First, it does not properly define the role of the Security Service. If one had any doubt about that before the Home Secretary spoke, that doubt would have been strengthened by his attempt to expound the provisions of clauses 1 and 2, which, far from indicating that the Bill was squarely based on the Maxwell Fyfe principles, or the definitions of national security as set out in 1975 by Lord Harris of Greenwich, showed that the Bill goes a great deal further than that. It also has some catch-all provisions, which will enable those in the Security Service—almost unchecked—to carry out investigations on or interferences, as they are called, with individuals and their property, which almost certainly would have fallen foul of the law in the past.
  Secondly, we shall vote against the Bill because, although it purports to provide a remedy for aggrieved members of the public, it is difficult to see how that remedy will be effective. It in fact removes the redress that the individual citizen has at present, by providing a system which excludes the purview of the courts.
  Thirdly, we shall vote against this measure because the Bill entirely fails to provide for effective scrutiny and parliamentary accountability, which I believe is increasingly recognised, not only in this country but in other parliamentary democracies, as appropriate for the Security Service as it is for other Government services.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: Because of your appeal, Mr. Speaker, for short speeches and the 10-minute rule which is about to—
  Hon. Members: It is on.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not effective until 7 o'clock.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful. I would prefer not to give way, although I regret the brevity of the debate.
  The Bill is a response to an historical situation of considerable gravity, which has been underlined not just by the revelations of the rogue Peter Wright, but by the more serious revelations of Cathy Massiter, Anthony Cavendish and many other instances of incompetence which have come to light since the end of the last world war. Of course it is correct to move towards putting the Security Service on a statutory footing, provided that the statute deals with the problems which have been highlighted, but plainly it does not.

  1135
  The continuing practice of the Security Service over the years to scrutinise the wrong people because they belong to a class of individuals who are suspect in certain Right-wing circles and to promote from within its ranks or into its ranks highly unsuitable people—in many cases the agents of foreign powers—suggests that something radical is needed to ensure that this self-perpetuating oligarchy, only sporadically the subject of effective scrutiny, is ended.
  The role of the Security Service under the Maxwell Fyfe rubric was fairly clearly set out, and departures from the role were clearly matters that required to be remedied. However, under clause 1, there must be considerable anxiety about the extent of the powers and functions of the proposed statutory service. The use in clause 1(2) of the definition of the protection of national security, and the continuation later in that clause of the description of particular threats, appear to allow the Security Service to decide that many matters not particularised also raise issues of national security; that I am anxious about. It is an open door to pursue hares which are inappropriate.
  It is disturbing, too, that the wording of the Harris of Greenwich rubric is not in fact precisely reflected in clause 1. Those provisions of the Bill provide for protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents and foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means. Those are three separate categories.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs was only satisfied by the Harris of Greenwich definition of regional security because those two latter categories were linked together. The Select Committee—which the Home Secretary wrongly invoked in support of the Bill—did not consider that it was satisfactory to have these as separate categories. That last category has given rise to criticisms in the past that the Security Service has too readily focused upon political, not security, issues. That the Cathy Massiter type of revelations will continue unchecked is something that must worry us.
  The concept of subversion, which clause 1 appears designed to define, has been found unhelpful in other security services. It is noticeable that, in the past year, the Canadians have specifically excluded subversion from the purview of their security service. I believe that we should have taken the opportunity to do likewise in this Bill.
  I found compelling the remarks of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead in an earlier debate on the matter. Speaking as a former Home Secretary, he described the inappropriateness of those who are living and moving in the fevered world of espionage, applying their minds to whether certain behaviour was subversive or simply legitimate dissent.
  I doubt whether the proposals for remedying grievances are much of an improvement on the provisions of common law. They provide limited rights but are not subject to appeal to the courts. They do not seem to provide for circumstances that have been complained of: that smear campaigns have been conducted for political purposes, or that a former Prime Minister believed that MI5 had tried to undermine his Government. Such complaints will not be examined by the tribunal that will be set up and will
  1136
  certainly not be examined by the commissioner. Nor will complainants be given reasons for the decisions of the tribunal.
  No adequate remedy is provided, and in any event it is highly unlikely that evidence will be available on which complainants could mount a case to the tribunal—certainly in the light of the linked provisions in the Official Secrets Bill, which will come before the House next week, which make it an offence for a member of the Security Service to reveal any misdeeds in the service.
  The third and most important defect of the Bill is the lack of accountability. The Home Secretary's view, which he repeated today, is that to give some accountability to any body other than himself is to breach the necessary secrecy. He has spoken repeatedly of the barrier of secrecy. Those who are within that barrier include himself, the Prime Minister and a few others for specific purposes.
  I take no great comfort from the proposed appointment of the commissioner. His role is much more limited than that described by the Home Secretary. It is confined to the propriety of the handling of warrants and he is not allowed to examine policy, efficiency, value for money or any of the matters that Parliament is entitled to consider.
  On value for money, it is extraordinary that a service that costs the country more than £100 million per annum is accountable to the National Audit Office only through the certificate of a Minister that the money has been spent. That will not suffice. Even the financial responsibility for the service is inadequately provided for.
  The gossamer-thin arguments that the Home Secretary used to disregard the evidence of what is happening in other countries show the frailty of the Government's case in general. It is possible for individuals to be chosen by the House who are responsible and perfectly capable of straddling, or going within, the barrier of secrecy. He has preferred instead to bring within the barrier of secrecy as the commissioner someone of high judicial office.
  In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Home Secretary said, in relation to a body that may be set up to scrutinise the workings of the Security Service:
  "If the body knew all, it would know that it could say little to the rest of Parliament without damaging results. If it knew little, it could say nothing with any conviction".—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 123.]
  Parliament would prefer to play some part in the choice of those who are appointed to scrutinise, or to stand at the Secretary of State's shoulder, as he put it. If those great powers—they are necessary powers—are to be applied without infringing fundamental human rights and freedoms, Parliament must discharge its role more precisely by appointing a body that is accountable directly to it. We cannot simply rely upon the assertions of the Ministers that all is well.
  The acceptance of that principle of Executive convenience is an abandonment of our democratic responsibilities, and that is why we shall vote against the Bill.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I shall resist the temptation to go down the byways of the past to review the history of the service and some recent events that may apply to it. I shall concentrate on what the House must consider.
  For the first time, the Security Service will be placed on a statutory basis and Parliament is invited in clause 1,

  1137
  which has been carefully drafted, to define the function of the service. Clause 2 defines the role of the director-general and the line of accountablility from the person in day-to-day management of the service to the Home Secretary. That is reaffirmed as the proper form of control, and I support it. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are accountable to the House. They are both elected Members of Parliament, who assume that accountability by virtue of their appointment to ministerial office.
  For the first time, there will be a statutory remedy for members of the public who have complaints about the service's activities against them. I welcome the Bill because it answers the anxiety that has grown in recent years about the alleged illegal activities of the service and its supposed lack of accountablility. Those allegations have followed well-publicised disclosures by former officers of the service.
  There is no doubt that, in a parliamentary democracy, the House should have the opportunity to define the function of the service and to set up, as is proposed in the Bill, a procedure for investigating and remedying complaints from the public arising from its actions. Those who work for the service should clearly understand the legal basis for their activities. There should be explicit ground rules and improved procedures for accountability.
  The Bill will define MI5's functions as the protection of national security, especially against the threat of espionage, terrorism and sabotage. The director-general is charged with ensuring that the service remains politically neutral.
  Under the proposals, the Home Secretary will be given power to issue warrants before members of the service can enter property—something which they do not at present require. I qualify that by saying that the entry of a person on to another person's property is subject to civil law as well as, in many instances, criminal law, and both are complicated matters. An independent commissioner who is a former or serving senior judge and thus independent of the Executive—that point is important—will continually review the warrant system and report annually to the Prime Minister. His reports will be published, subject to vetting on security grounds, and the House will have the opportunity to consider those reports.
  The new guidelines will follow the lines of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which brought telephone tapping and the interception of mail by the Security Service under the law. A tribunal of up to five independent lawyers will also be appointed to consider any complaints against the service by members of the public. It will have the power to call on MI5 for relevant documentation and information. If a complaint is upheld, the tribunal can order an end to an investigation and the destruction of relevant records. Those are powerful and significant requirements.
  Furthermore, compensation payments can also be granted by the tribunal, which is independent, and officers engaged in entering property without warrant authorisation may face criminal proceedings. There have been, and will continue to be, calls for a wider parliamentary role in the accountability of the service, as we have heard in the debate this afternoon. I recall that, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs carried out an inquiry into the work of special branch—which is, perhaps, the public face of the security services in some of its activities—we had great difficulty in mounting that inquiry.
  1138
  One question begets another and the problem is that, before one knows where one is, one wishes to intrude into operational areas; that may put in jeopardy the interests of the nation and the very function of the service whose existence Parliament is being invited to authorise in the Bill. I do not, therefore, subscribe to the view that a special Committee of the House should be appointed or that a Select Committee—the Select Committee on Home Affairs comes to mind—should be otherwise involved in the scrutiny of the service's work.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) used the example of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary being accosted in the street tnd asked for a warrant at 9.45 am. The Select Committee would be in an even less favourable position if it were to be approached to authorise the grant of warrants or, worse still, to be asked to say whether the issue of that warrant should continue. The neat arrangement for the tribunal meets the legitimate concerns of members of all parties for an acceptable form of accountability.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs could look at the Estimates for the financial provision for the service, as could the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because they are a matter of public availability. The Select Committee could examine the report about the work of the tribunal and its findings, but I do not believe that it is either practical or desirable for Parliament to go beyond that.
  We have heard this afternoon about the work of other democratic Parliaments and the attempts that they may have made to exercise some scrutiny over the work of their own security services. I know nothing about the details of those operations, but in the fulness of time, I may have the opportunity to examine them. However, I doubt that they could go much further than the Bill's provisions on the work of the commissioner and the tribunal. I very much doubt whether a service that is charged with the utmost secrecy to perform its functions can be made accountable operationally to a Select Committee or a committee of politicians who have other interests and other concerns as the basis of their appointment.
  If the service is to remain effective and to serve the best interests of the British people, operational accountability must, strictly, arise from the director-general to the Home Secretary and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. The holders of those offices must remain accountable for their discharge on the Floor of the House of Commons. I see no way at all of avoiding those responsibilities.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: There is no dispute among the Opposition about whether there should be a Security Service. It goes without saying that even if the country was not involved in combating terrorism and drugs, the necessity for such a service would remain. The dispute is whether that service should be accountable to Parliament.
  When the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of which the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) was a member—decided in 1984 to make the first ever parliamentary inquiry into the special branch of the police, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who was not a member of the Committee, said that the Committee's decision could endanger the security of this country. As I have remarked previously, we carried

  1139
  out the inquiry, with some controversy, and produced a majority report and a minority report. Lo and behold, not a soul, including the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, has argued that any damage was done to the national interest, although the Home Secretary at the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), was hardly enthusiastic that the Select Committee should look into the special branch.
  During the course of proceedings, the Home Secretary made public the Home Office guidelines on special branch. That was the first time that the guidelines had been published and the Home Secretary did not deny that the Committee's decision to look into special branch was connected with the decision to go ahead in bringing that document into the public domain. The hon. Member for Westminster, North is nodding his head in agreement.
  I have some knowledge of the minority report because I wrote it. Paragraph 34 of the minority report says:
  "The security services were outside the terms of reference for this inquiry, but the House may well wish to consider whether the present total lack of Parliamentary scrutiny over these government agencies is really desirable and if it would not be preferable for there to be some degree of accountability to Parliament which would not endanger the safety of the realm."
  I doubt whether the Government would have produced the Bill if the Security Service had not been the subject of such continued controversy and scandal, particularly in view of Wright's serious allegations that he and other officers in MI5 were involved in subversive activity against the Labour Government in the 1970s.
  Of course, as I have said before, Wright may have been lying, and the only reason that he published such allegations may have been that he wanted his book to sell. The Government have certainly helped him to become a millionaire. However, if there is any truth in his allegations, the questions must arise about how someone like Wright was ever recruited into MI5. Can any Conservative Member say that Wright was wholly committed to parliamentary democracy? Because he did not like the Government of the day and considered it too Left-wing, he decided to commit treachery. What sort of person was he? Are there others like him in MI5? There is a good possibility that he is telling the truth and that others were involved and still remain in the Security Service.
  There have also been disclosures from Cathy Massiter. I do not put these two people together. Wright is an out-and-out scoundrel, and, whether he is telling the truth or not, his basic loyalty to this country and to the democratic process must remain in considerable doubt, to say the least. Ms. Massiter,who was employed by MI5, clearly had the most serious reservations about what she was being asked to do. No one has claimed that she made any money out of her disclosures. I believe that she acted in an honourable manner and I am pleased that there are people whose conscience leads them to say that their work is wrong and that they should make that known. I have the highest respect for Ms. Massiter. However, under the Government's proposal, which will be debated next week, for the change of the Official Secrets Act, she would have had no legal defence that she had acted in the public interest. That must cause us much concern, and the Opposition will express that concern when the Bill is debated next week.
  1140
  Clause 5 of the Bill establishes a tribunal to consider complaints against the Security Service. As the Home Secretary pointed out, that is very much along the lines of what was agreed in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 which also raised considerable doubts among Opposition Members both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I do not believe that the provision in the Bill is an improvement upon the complaints procedure in that Act.
  We can be assured that many complainants who apply to the Security Service tribunal will not be in a position to argue their case. Most people will not even know whether they are the subject of investigation by MI5, but even those who believe that they have a case and take it to the tribunal are most unlikely to be allowed to appear in person or—more important —to be legally represented. It will not be too difficult for the Security Service to make out a case that the national interest required such and such a person to be targeted. The tribunal will then conclude that in all the circumstances the Security Service acted in the proper way.
  Our crucial concern is not of course, that the Security Service pursues spies or people who genuinely endanger the security of the country. It is right and proper that it should do that. That is what our Security Service should be all about. What worries us is that people engaged in perfectly legitimate political activities are targeted by the Security Service. That is why Cathy Massiter's disclosures are so worrying. She told us that the leaders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were spied upon and that, when the editor of CND's journal resigned over an internal difficulty of the kind that all organisations have, he was approached by members of the security services or special branch who were interested in all kinds of tittle-tattle; they wanted to know who had slept with whom and all about people's private lives. What has that to do with the security of the country?
  Ministers have told us repeatedly that it is perfectly legitimate to campaign for nuclear disarmament. It does not matter how strongly the Government oppose nuclear disarmament; those involved in the campaign should not be spied upon or have their private lives pried into by people paid by the taxpayer who are supposed to be defending the interests of the state. Opposition Members suspect that CND was targeted because the then Secretary of State for Defence gave direct orders to MI5 to target it.
  Mr. Foot: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Winnick: As my right hon. Friend says, it was disgraceful.
  Take the National Council for Civil Liberties. Cathy Massiter told us that anyone who was on the national executive of that organisation or who was an active member at branch level was placed on permanent record and that routine inquiries were established to identify such people, with police co-operation being sought. Just imagine that.
  Why was it decided to target my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who was then the legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Patricia Hewitt, who was its general secretary and who now works in the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick: I am afraid that I cannot, because of the time limit.
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Ms. Diane Abbott: He knows the answer.
  Mr. Winnick: If he knows the answer, he can tell us in his own time. No doubt the House will be interested to hear his explanation.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and Patricia Hewitt are bringing their case before the European Court of Human Rights and that it has been decided that there is a case for the British Government to answer. If those two were targeted, the question inevitably arises how many other people, perhaps less prominent, wer the subject of MI5 investigations or of special branch but did not find out.
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Winnick: Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will tell me how much time I have left.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman has six minutes.
  Mr. Winnick: Then I give way to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason).
  Mr.Allason: The hon. Gentleman asked why members of the National Council for Civil Liberties should historically be targeted by the security services. The answer is quite simple. Many years ago, the NCCL was defined as a proscribed organisation by the Labour party because it was considered to be a Communist front, and the Communist party of Great Britain has always been the subject of surveillance by the Security Service.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that explanation. I have never had an explanation from the Government. I wonder whether the explanation that the hon. Gentleman gave will be the one given by the Government at the European Court of Human Rights.
  Mr. Allason: The NCCL was proscribed by the Labour party.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: We shall research it and find out.
  Mr. Winnick: We have no need to research it; I know the answer. It is perfectly true that, rightly or wrongly, the NCCL was proscribed by the Labour party—at a time when, in all honesty, the Communist party had too much influence in the organisation. I concede that. But those events took place about 25 or 30 years ago. Can MI5 really say that matters have not changed and that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and Patricia Hewitt, who are as committed to parliamentary democracy and its defence as any hon. Member, should be targeted because there was too much Communist influence on the organisation 25 or 30 years ago? No one—not even the Government—could claim that the NCCL is a Communist front organisation now or has been for 20 years. The Communist party probably has no more than 4,000 or 5,000 members now, so it is hardly in a position to have front organisations. That is more a matter for the Conservative party.
  1142
  No doubt if the Security Service was made accountable to Parliament, the Select Committee — presumably the Select Committee on Home Affairs—would ask the director-general the questions that I have asked. It would not be appropriate to ask about operational matters that would genuinely endanger the security of the country, and we did not ask any such questions when we carried out an inquiry into special branch.
  But the broader questions are also very important, and in that respect I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Other Western countries, no less democratic than ours—the United States, Canada and Australia—have concluded that their security services must be made accountable to Parliament. Why should we be different? Perhaps there would be a case if it could be argued that our Security Service had never been the subject of scandal and if we had never had any Wrights; but even leaving aside the Soviet spies and all the rest of it, our Security Service has been particularly scandal prone. Canada, Australia and the United States have decided to make their security services accountable to Parliament, and we have even more reason to do that.
  The present definition of subversion is far too wide. I prefer the definition agreed to before the one decided upon by Lord Harris. Lord Denning's definition of subversive seems perfectly all right to me:
  "one who would overthrow or contemplate the overthrow of government by unlawful means."
  That definition would give the security services a far more narrow remit and less scope to dabble in matters that do not concern them.
  Britain's security services will remain the subject of controversy as long as parliamentary accountability is lacking. The Bill will not change the position. When the Bill becomes an Act, as it obviously will, Opposition Members will still have Adjournment debates, ten-minute Bills, and all that we are entitled to do. We shall continue to do all that, because we believe that, as in other western democracies, it is essential for those who carry out the sort of work that I have been describing—the broad range of which I do not question —to be subject to parliamentary accountability. We shall continue to press that point at every opportunity.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Government are right to want to legislate, or rather, to put the security services on a statutory basis. Whether they are going about it in the right way I shall come to, but we recognise the pressures that are upon them to do just that.
  When Sir John Donaldson, then a High Court judge, now Lord Donaldson, said that we would be naive to suppose that burglary and bugging do not take place, a man sworn to uphold the rule of law has denied it in the courts of Britain. That is remarkable.
  But the Government are confronted with something more pressing than that. As has been pointed out a couple of times today, we had two cases before the European Court of Human Rights in which it was argued that it is admissible to take a complaint to that court on the basis that we no longer have the judicial remedies to protect the freedoms and liberties of our own citizens.
  It is shocking that the United Kingdom, an early signatory to basic rights and freedoms and recognitions of

  1143
  who we are as a people, is now almost arraigned in front of the European Court defending our processes and practices.
  The Bill is a minimalist attempt to meet the contentions before that court. We have seen it happen before, in what The Times called an insult, in the Interception of Communications Act. That too was minimalist, and one day that too will come before the European Court and we shall be found wanting.
  My fear is that the Government, by not taking a direct and central grasp of the real issues that affect the relationship of the security services to a democracy, will also, in time, find that they are again in front of the European Court.
  I was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had had his official servants canvass the world to see what other procedures exist. I noticed how, within a couple of minutes, he was able to dispense with those, roll his hands and say, "Well done, we're pretty well done here."
  I shall not follow the line of the American experience, but let us take the Canadian one. One difficulty that has always confronted Parliament is that we are unique in having a parliamentary democracy with ministerial responsibility. Therefore, let us take a country which has just such a system, Canada.
  Canada had isolated incidents that sadly turned out to be not so isolated when a Royal Canadian mounted policeman, then responsible for his country's security services, unfortunately bombed someone's house. The Government said that those were isolated incidents, but they turned out not to be and the McDonald Commission was set up. Its report was telling. It was called "Freedom and Security under the Law". The concepts are there.
  Did we hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom say today that freedom as a concept must be weighed with security? No, we did not. That is what has been worrying me about my right hon. Friend's proposal. He is not weighing the central contentions for the House and for our society. After all, what is the Security Service for? It is to defend our liberal democracy. What is our liberal democracy? It is freedom of speech. It is also freedom to dissent. Let us never forget that. It is an important right that we try to exercise when we are assembled in the House. That is the function of the security services.
  When we weigh up the right organisation and the right arrangements to embrace a necessary protector, that is subordinate to the needs of us, as citizens, and to the House of Commons as an expression of what the citizens wish. That is one thing that the Bill does not do.
  Let me look at one definition. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly drew our attention to clause 1(2). There is an elision here from what the previous Home Secretary said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Two branches, or limbs—as I think he called them—are not there in that definition. I do not propose to go over it other than to take from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Bill, with which the Home Secretary will be familiar, the definition of
  "threats to the security of Canada."
  For that let us read
  1144
  "threats to the security of the United Kingdom."
  That means our freedom. That is what we are defending.
  The Bill deals with the understandable threats of espionage and treachery. Then it comes to the difficult area of what constitutes subversion. Sub-paragraph (d) defines it thus:
  "activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts"—
  note the insertion of "unlawful acts"—
  "or directly toward. or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overtħrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada".
  There is a final important caveat. The passage goes on:
  "but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d)"—
  (d) being the one that I have just quoted. That is a proper definition of the purpose of the Security Service.
  When my right hon. Friend and the Government come to weigh those matters in Committee I ask them to look in a more friendly manner on the necessary balances. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), previously a distinguished Whip, I cannot imagine that the House of Commons to which I am a party, can be so subservient as to say that there are things that we must not know or should not look at. The McDonald Commission, in 1,000 pages, asserted vigorously the right to know—the right even of the Opposition to know—what the security services are getting up to, because they touch on our freedoms in the most intimate way. They touch on our privacies and our rights.
  How can we be self-respecting if we say, "I must shield myself on the basis of a concept that there are only two people in Britain who must know"? The truth of the matter is that we know that they do not know. The experience of the noble Baron Armstrong in Australia was riveting because we knew what he did not know. So much did he not know that he had to have an instruction from the previous Attorney-General, the subsequent Lord Chancellor, to retract his evidence.
  The Bill confirms arrangements that a deferential House has accepted in the past. I notice that the focus for the Bill is the responsibility of the Home Secretary again. Canada and Australia used the Solicitor-General. I just add, in the spirit of Christmas goodwill, that perhaps that responsibility should fall to the Solicitor-General, who can give the time, interest and direction to those matters.
  At the end of the day the balance has to be right and that requires—I argue the Canadian course—an independent review committee and an inspector-general with warrants judicially issued and reviewed throughout, and a report to Parliament. That independent review committee of Privy Councillors is presently outside Parliament. That comes up for review next year, five years after it was introduced. I have heard commissioners say, first, that the system works and, secondly, that they see no reason why those nominated Privy Councillors should not be found from within the body of the House of Commons in Canada. We should respect the experience of our cousins, who come from our own institutions and who have pioneered a way better than we have today.
  7.18 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State described the Bill as a big step forward for the Security Service. Having read the

  1145
  Bill and listened carefully to his remarks, I would argue that rather than a big step forward it is something of a sideways shuffle.
  I have read the Bill carefully. Since it comes from a Government who pride themselves on cutting legislation to a minimum, the question that comes to someone such as me, unversed in security matters, is, what is it for? The Bill provides for no improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency or management of the service. Above all, it says nothing about parliamentary oversight. Who, among Conservative Members, can seriously say that there is no need for improvement in the management and efficiency of the security services? To show the need for improvement, I have only to reel off the names of past scandals such as those involving Maclean, Burgess, Philby and Blunt. I remind Conservative Members, that the case of Blunt was kept secret from the Government and the House for 15 years.
  The recurrent history of appalling scandals of KGB infiltration of the service ought to make responsible Members consider the need for improvements in management and efficiency. In addition, one senses from reading a number of different accounts that at any given time there will be elements in the service who do not consider themselves accountable to the Government. One does not have to believe a fraction of what Wright had to say, either to Chapman Pincher or in the book, against which an unsuccessful prosecution was brought in Australia, to know that there were elements, even if only half a dozen people, who did not consider themselves accountable to Wilson's Government. How could a Security Service that was serious about being accountable to the Government of the day keep the details of the Hollis investigation from the Prime Minister for as long as it did?
  There have been recurrent scandals, and a lack of a sense throughout the service of being accountable to the Government rather than a notional accountability to the Crown. There is an anti-Labour theme running through the activities of some of the members of the security services. When Sir John Hunt, the Cabinet Secretary, was asked to examine the Security Service's activities, one of his suggestions was that the recruitment system needed to be reformed to prevent anti-Labour factions from forming. Do we know what reforms were carried out or how effective they were? Leonard McCoy, an ex-deputy head of the CIA, when interviewed, said that, when briefed by James Angleton, head of CIA, he was told that Harold Wilson was a Soviet Agent. I am not a 100 per cent. unreconstructed admirer of Harold Wilson, but it is an extraordinary way to describe a sturdy west Yorkshire patriot.
  How can one take the activities and the loyalty of the security services seriously when remarks such as that come from foreign security agents that work hand in glove with them?
  I shall touch lightly on the question of madness in the security services. Sir Martin Furnival, an ex-head of MI5, said, and he should know, that possibly four or five years in counter-espionage is too long because it causes insanity. I shall not pursue the matter further.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) talked about the bad drafting of the Bill. That is cruel to the civil servants in the Box. I am obliged, as an ex-Home Office administration trainee, to stand up for my one-time colleagues and remind hon. Members that drafting can only be as clear and elegant as the political intentions
  1146
  behind the legislation. The Opposition believe that the political intentions behind the legislation are neither clear, elegant nor coherent. It will not do for hon. Members to criticise hard-working, underpaid members of the Home Office by talking about poor drafting.
  The drafting, including that of clause 1(2). is quite extraordinary. It says:
  "The function of the Service shall be …protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage from the activities of agents of foreign powers".
  That is fine. However, it goes on to refer subjectively to undermining parliamentary democracy
  "by political, industrial or violent means."
  Some Opposition Members might say that by abolishing tiers of local government the Government are seriously undermining our system of democracy.
  The clause continues by saying that the function of the service is
  "to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  What does that mean? Is the Security Service licensed to bug and burgle innocent New York stockbrokers who may be engaged in speculation against our short-term economic interest? The drafting is extraordinary, but I blame the politicians.
  Schedule 1, which deal with the working of the tribunal, is equally strange. Paragraph 2(4) contains a circular argument. The service can investigate someone because he or she is part
  "of a category of persons regarded by the Service as requiring investigation".
  Under paragraph 2(4) that is acceptable to the tribunal. There is no provision for an appeal to find out what categories of person the service deems to be worthy of investigation. It is as if the service is judge and jury. For example, if the service found a category such as ex-general secretaries of the National Council for Civil Liberties worthy of investigation, that would be acceptable under the terms of the schedule. Therefore, as I have said, the drafting is extraordinary, but I blame the politicians.
  There has been much talk by Conservative Members about what Labour Governments did or did not do when they had the chance. As somebody who was not horn when some of those Labour Governments were in power, I cannot take seriously Conservative Members' claim that what Labour Governments did not do is an infallible guide to what the Government should do.
  The Bill and speeches made by Conservative Members refer to fears about the undermining of parliamentary democracy. I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we all take that seriously. What more serious threat is there to the respect and esteem in which parliamentary democracy is held than for the Government to say that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted with scrutiny or oversight of the Security Service? That has been requested by three ex-directors of the Security Service and is found in every English-speaking democracy. The Secretary of State has undermined parliamentary democracy by saying that elected Members of Parliament, the heart of our parliamentary system, cannot be trusted with what every other English-speaking democracy has. That is an unfounded smear. The Bill represents no great leap forward but a crab-like shuffle sideways. I hope that, even at this late stage. the Government will reconsider.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said that what Labour Governments have not done should not be a guide to what this Government should do. One thing is clear—the previous Labour Government did nothing about secrecy or the Security Service.
  We enjoy with great amusement and pleasure the books and films about spies. Some of them are real and some are fictional. This has been a light-hearted debate. I remember Art Buchwald saying that the best thing that we could do would be to give the Russians our secrets because that would put them three years behind.
  But the security of the state and the lives of the people who protect us in the Security Service are precious and important for the existence of the nation. And so we must pay proper regard to the seriousness of the matter that we are discussing.
  I believe that most people, including even, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), accept that there must be secrets and that they should remain secret. Most people accept that those who work in the Secret Service should be trusted to keep these secrets, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North necessarily agrees with that. However, people are concerned that only things that should necessarily be secret should remain so. Many people believe that criminal sanctions should apply only in cases for which they are absolutely necessary.
  Many believe that if the Security Service does wrong there should be redress and that that redress will come only if there are visible signs of accountability. There have not been such signs, and it was to remedy that that the Government brought forward this Bill which, in principle, we should all support.
  There is argument about how this acceptability should be achieved. We can all agree that putting the Secret Service on a statutory basis for the first time is thoroughly good. We can all agree that its functions should be set out to protect national security, not political parties. They should be so set out to protect us against espionage, terrorism, and sabotage, and against the undermining of parliamentary democracy. Some of us also think that the state should be protected against economic subversion, although as has been pointed out, the wording in clause 1(2) is somewhat mysterious.
  Most of us can agree that there should be a director-general, as there now is, with statutory requirements that he must follow, that information will be available only for certain limited purposes, and that once they have been fulfilled, that information should be destroyed. So there is a great deal of the Bill about which we must all agree—but there is disagreement about the instruments for achieving accountability.
  Most Conservative Members do not believe that a parliamentary Select Committee is the best way of achieving accountability, mainly because we are all intensely party-political and adversarial. That is the strength of this place, but we all know that the best of us are liable, in moments of over-enthusiasm and of political bias, to make misjudgments which can be serious if peoples' lives are at stake. I do not want to embarrass any hon. Member, but we all know of many occasions in the past few months alone—let alone in the rather longer time
  1148
  that some of us have been here—when some hon. Members have made asses of themselves although, in the normal way, they are the most upright, sensible and balanced colleagues. This happens because we sometimes become detached by our political and adversarial status—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Ministers are Members of Parliament? Surely, if they can be trusted with secrets, when they are out of office they can also be trusted with them.
  Mr. Lawrence: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. He will notice that in the Bill which will be published next week the Government propose to take away ministerial certificates which allowed Ministers to say that they were the best judges of what constituted a secret. The Government propose to give that decision to juries. So now, the fact that people—genuinely or otherwise—might sometimes think that a Minister was biased in his assessment of what a secret was, has been recognised, and the decision on that will be left to an unpolitical, independent, objective and unbiased body of people—the jury.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Ministers have Departments with large numbers of civil servans who can advise them in a considered way, whereas Members of Parliament, who are busy and rushed, have little support?
  Mr. Lawrence: I accept that excellent point in support of my argument.
  The Government propose an independent and objective structure for accountability. It is evident from the Bill that there are a number of ways in which people will be protected—ordinary people and people in the Security Service. The operation is under the control of a director-general, who is appointed by the Secretary of State who, usually, if not always, and whichever party is in power, has a general sense of balance and reliability when he appoints important people to important positions. The Secretary of State will have the power to authorise warrants for obtaining information from private property.
  A commissioner will review the Secretary of State's use of his warrant power—that is new. The commissioner is a senior judge, past or present. He has a duty to be supplied with all documents and information that he thinks necessary. He is required to make an annual report to the Prime Minister which will be laid before Parliament. So the public and Security Service personnel will be protected at a series of stages.
  Next, there is a tribunal to consider complaints about activities of the Security Service. If, in the past, CND or the NCCL or anyone else have been unfairly supervised and have had reason for complaint, there is now a structure to deal with that—a tribunal composed of the most wonderful people in our society: four or five lawyers, utterly independent, not politically biased, not people who CND might say had opposite political persuasions. They will decide whether the complaint is valid, they will make the necessary inquiry and they will cause the records to be destroyed and award compensation if necessary.
  So, for the first time, we have a whole ramp of protections—from the director-general and the Secretary of State to the staff counsellor, who has existed for some

  1149
  time and to whom the discontented service man, or woman, can go. There are also the commissioner and the tribunal, and if all that protection and accountability are insufficient, there is always the Member of Parliament. In all this discussion, people have lost sight of the fact that we in this House have direct access to Cabinet Ministers and, in important cases, to the Prime Minister. If secret agents had legitimate complaints to make—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They cannot come to us.
  Mr. Lawrence: They could, and they could be authorised to release their information to a Cabinet Minister, to the Prime Minister or even to us. They could not be stopped from doing that.
  Some of this ramp of protections never existed before; most have now been put into place in this Bill; and they are all there for the purpose that concerns us all—accountability.
  There may be problems in the legislation—of definition and of scope. They can be sorted out as the Bill goes through Parliament, as most of these problems usually are. There is also the practical problem of unbalanced people. I represent a constituency with a lower proportion of unbalanced people than any other in the country—if that were not so, I would not have been voted into this place as its Member of Parliament. But there are still some people who believe that the Security Service spies on them through their television sets and who think that the noises they hear at night are specially directed at them by the Service. Sometimes they think that the electric currents are directed against them. This is a psychiatric illness, for which the only remedy is to suggest to such people that they wear wellington boots around the house so that the currents will not be conducted through them and cause them any disturbance. All those nuts will have access to the tribunal. The American figures show, I believe, that 30 per cent. of complaints fall into that category.
  It is beyond denial that the Bill will provide better protection for state servants who feel that wrong is being done, and for people who are wronged by the secret service. It is not perfect—no legislation ever is, but it will—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is reaching the end of his remarks.
  Mr. Lawrence: I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am reaching my last two or three sentences, though I did have to give way to one or two interventions.
  The Bill will help to strengthen public confidence in a way that a political all-party committee of the House would not. It is because public confidence is so important to us all that I support the Bill.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I cannot join the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who, in not expressing a vote of confidence in other right hon. and hon. Members, felt that they are incapable of maintaining the integrity of information divulged in the secret proceedings of a committee. However, I join the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in supporting in principle a Bill that places the security service on a statutory footing.
  I confess that when the Bill was published, I thought it likely that I would support it in the Division Lobbies, and
  1150
  I stated as much on a television programme. However. the more I read of the Bill's detail, the more I realised that the absence of parliamentary accountability is a fatal flaw. I drew that conclusion after my visit to Washington during the summer, when I was able to discuss the matter with Mr. Thomas Latimer, staff director of the congressional select committee on intelligence, and to discuss that committee's operations with certain Members of Congress who had business with the committee—if I may put it that way.
  The general view expressed to me was that the system worked. One of the reasons why it does not leak is that its members are required to sign a complex document that is exactly the same as that which members of the American security services sign. Committee Members feel bound by that document, and they are people whom Congress feels it can trust.
  My own proposals for parliamentary scrutiny can be found in appendix 6 of the first report from the Select Committee of Privileges 1986–87, when it carried out its inquiry into the Zircon affair. During the course of its proceedings, members of the Select Committee were asked to make their own submissions. I made one based on establishing a scrutiny committee that, in its early days or years, would have special responsibility for three areas of activity. They are, first, matters such as the Zircon project, which are reported to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in confidence but are not referred to the PAC's general membership. In making such a reference to the Chairman only, parliamentary accountability is currently provided for—but I believe that that duty should be removed from the PAC Chairman and transferred to the committee that I thought should be established.
  The second area is the sums of money shown under defence Votes as applying to areas of expenditure to which they are not in fact allocated; that is to say, laundered money within the defence budget that does not show up precisely under the specified project definition. That area of expenditure was drawn to my attention by the minutes of two previous PAC hearings in, I believe, 1947 and 1963. Clearly, there are laundered areas of expenditure—to which I do not object, if that is the way it must be done to hide expenditure that otherwise would fall under the secret Vote.
  The third area of expenditure that could be subject to the proposed committee's scrutiny is the secret Vote itself, which I understand now totals about £100 million annually. So there are three areas that, in the proposed committee's early years, could be under scrutiny without risking too much and, if I am honest about it, without unsettling people in the Security Service and perhaps even in the Government.
  Those three areas could have come under scrutiny in order to build within the Security Service and the Department, and among Ministers, confidence in the fact that parliamentary accountability can work. However, there has been no response by the Government to that proposal. I have asked Ministers whether they are prepared to take on board the principle behind my proposals, but to date there has been no positive response. Financial accountability is the way in to scrutiny of the security services. That scrutiny can be undertaken only once that first hurdle has been cleared.
  I refer next to subversion, and draw attention to conflicting statements that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to consider. The first concerns the interpretation

  1151
  of subversion by the Prime Minister when she announced new vetting procedures in 1985. Referring to her own belief of what constitutes subversion, she spoke of an individual who
  "is or has been a Member of the Communist Party or a fascist organisation or of a subversive group, or is or has recently been sympathetic to or associated with members or sympathisers of such organisations or groups in such a way as to raise reasonable doubt about his or her reliability, or people who are susceptible to pressure from such organisations or groups."
  I believe that that is the secret interpretation of what constitutes subversion.
  That belief is reinforced by a letter that was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and quoted in the latest book by Richard Norton-Taylor, who researched this subject area in depth. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), wrote to him that special branches are not interested in trade unionists "as such", but
  "only in such activities of individuals within trade unions (as within any other group or section in society) as are relevant to the tasks laid upon them by the guidelines."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged:
  "The definition"
  of subversion
  "is not limited to possible acts of a criminal nature. In an open society such as ours it is all too easy to use tactics which are not themselves unlawful for subversive ends … Those who are entrusted with safeguarding our democratic institutions from subversive attack must not be prevented from looking into the activities of those whose real aim it to harm our democracy but who, for tactical or other reasons, choose to keep (either in the long or the short term) within the letter of the law in what they do."
  Also, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor as Home Secretary, now Viscount Whitelaw, wrote:
  "The preservation of public order may require information to be kept on individuals who are active in a political movement, not because of the views they hold, but because the activities of the group could be such as to encourage public disorder."
  Those are two different interpretations of subversion.
  If one adds to them the interpretation given by the present Home Secretary when addressing the House this afternoon, there are three. I submit that the interpretation that will be applied is that of the Prime Minister. That will sow confusion in the minds of the public. In my view, that is the intention, because through confusion the Government will secure what they want—and that is, no change.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Although by the Home Secretary's admission, the Bill is some 79 years late, I welcome it enormously. I should like, however, to know the Government's motiviation. Is it the impending judgment in the European Court? Alternatively, is it the controversy earlier this year relating to the royal prerogative? Since its inception in 1909, members of the Security Service have been told that their work is covered not by statute but by the royal prerogative, but earlier this year that plank was well and truly demolished legally. One
  1152
  of the Bill's advantages is that it will give a boost to morale in the Security Service, which for years has in effect been working without strict legal backing.
  Although a good deal of both optimism and pessimism has been expressed here today, we have not heard much realism. I want to examine a little of the background to the secrecy of the Security Service. The service has not always been cloaked in secrecy. Before the war Colonel Edward Hinchley-Cooke was a regular figure in the media as the representative of the service, and after the war Jim Skardon would give evidence on its behalf without having to be described as witness A, B, or C. Similarly, in the early 1950s the director-general of the Security Service, Sir Percy Sillitoe, was given official permission to write his memoirs.
  I do not want to get involved in the business of accountability; I have never believed that the Security Service has been truly accountable to the House. I would, however, like to congratulate the Home Secretary on constructing a bridge over the barrier of secrecy. Last year he told me that it was impossible to bridge. I gave him various ideas then about the introduction of two people whom I described as "non-executive directors" who could be involved in the work of the Security Service, on its directorate, and at the same time could write a report each year that could be supplied to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I very much regret that instead of two non-executive directors we appear to be getting just one commissioner, but I hope that that omission will be rectified in Committee.
  From whom, though, is any oversight committee to hear evidence? If the suggestions that have been made today are followed, evidence will be heard from the director-general, but I feel that that suggestion is fatally flawed, because experience tells us that the word of individual directors-general simply cannot be relied on. Let me cite two examples.
  In 1949 Klaus Fuchs was arrested in an espionage case. At the time the director-general of the Security Service was prevailed upon by senior officers to lie to the Prime Minister, because it was believed that if it was revealed that there had been a major blunder and that Fuchs could have been arrested in 1944 or 1945, the morale of the service would be undermined. That is a clear example of the Prime Minister being misled. I might add that the director-general at that time had severe reservations about what happened.
  Another much later case is on the public record. It is one of the most disgraceful documents to be publicly available, and was written by the Security Service. I refer to the White Paper on Burgess and Maclean. I urge hon. Members to read it if they believe that advice from the Security Service can always be relied on. It details no fewer than 17 major instances of deception.
  Let me explain why I feel that two commissioners are needed. I have described how reports from the director-general cannot always be relied upon, and I do not believe that we can necessarily rely on reports from a single commissioner working alone. Lord Denning, for instance, was taken for a ride by the Security Service. That was the view of many senior officers at the time. A little pantomime was prepared—a completely bogus operation —for him to witness, which he describes in the report in glowing detail. That is another example of a single person being duped by the Security Service.
  What about the judicial qualification suggested in clause 4(1)? While I believe that it is a good old-fashioned

  1153
  British tradition to rely on a judge in such matters, I am not as sanguine as that, or as confident in judges. I would much rather have two commissioners, and I would not restrict their qualification to the law—with the greatest respect to hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House.
  I should like the role of commissioner to be greatly widened. It seems to me from reading the Bill that that role will be limited to dealing with the supervision of warrants and with complaints brought by the tribunal. I should like to return to the idea of two non-executive directors who would be involved not in operational matters but certainly in matters of policy judgment, and I hope that that suggestion will be considered in Committee.
  The Bill says nothing about what could go into the annual report of the commissioner or commissioners. We know from our experience of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 that the reports by the commissioner under the Act supply less information than we had before. I should like certain detailed questions to be answered on an annual basis in the report. Again, that could be considered in Committee.
  There is, for example, the marvellous euphemism "interference with property". I think that it should be a statutory responsibility of the commissioner to mention in his report every year exactly how many warrants have been issued. I do not think that the disclosure of that detail would necessarily undermine operational prowess. It would, however, be of great reassurance to the public to know that there will he rather more in the report than the view across Gower street and the Euston road.
  Let me now deal with the Security Service itself. Many reforms have been introduced by Sir Antony Duff in the wake of the Bettaney affair. I remind hon Members who are not aware of quite how appalling that case was that this was a senior Security Service officer operating in the most senior branch of the service, who was promoted although he had two criminal convictions for deception—having also been convicted of drunkenness—and who consumed a bottle of whisky a day. I urge hon. Members to read the Security Commission report on that, because it is utterly damning.
  The Security Commission has often been mentioned as having some kind of oversight role, yet within the Security Service it has been suggested that the commission is nothing more than a stable-locking operation. I suggest that anyone who does not agree with that reads the Security Commission report on Michael Bettaney, which illustrates one of the dilemmas placed before the commission. The report contains the statement that Bettaney's erratic behaviour drew attention to him and he was therefore denounced by colleagues, and that that was how the investigation was pursued. What seems odd about that is that we now know in the light of subsequent events that it was Oleg Gordievsky in the Soviet embassy, the KGB resident in London, who tipped off the security authorities to the existence of a traitor in their midst.
  That prompts the following question: did the Security Commission lie when it stated that Bettaney's investigation had been initiated as a consequence of the diligence and vigilance of his colleagues? Alternatively, were they lied to, with the best of motives, because the Security Service wished to protect a source? That is a very difficult operational dilemma, but again it calls into question the system of reporting and the difficulties of oversight.
  1154
  The United States has recently been subjected to the Iran-Contra scandal. What is so odd about that incident is that, although the law, as supplied by the Senate, was broken, there were no penalties for Oliver North or for John Poindexter. I hope that in Committee penal ties will be incorporated in the Bill.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. At long last it provides the Security Service with a legal status. It provides for the appointment of a commissioner, which I welcome, although I hope that in Committee we can add a second commissioner. The Bill provides for the creation of a tribunal, which is also warmly to be welcomed. Therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  8 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I cannot, as did the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), claim to have immersed myself in this subject for many years. I have to consider it in a very simple way. According to the Bill, the purpose of the Security Service is to protect parliamentary democracy. However, the Security Service has a unique power with which to undermine parliamentary democracy. We have to ask ourselves whether the Bill—which hon. Members have welcomed in
  principle, if not for its content—furthers parliamentary democracy. The answer to that question must he that it does not do so.
  Because of its limited powers, the Bill asks us to trust the Government. That request ought not to be made. We should not be asked to trust any Government at any time in any parliamentary democracy, nor should we be obliged to trust any Government. We should be able to ask the Government to tell us what they are doing and to spell out their policies, and then we should be able to subject their policies to scrutiny. The Bill makes no provision for such scrutiny.
  In recent years a litany of names, associated with the Security Service, have passed on confidential information. Bettaney has just been mentioned. Ponting, Tisdall, Stalker, Massiter, Wright and Campbell also revealed confidential information. The Government behaved badly in public in those cases, yet they ask us to trust them in private. That is extremely difficult to do.
  A Select Committee of senior parliamentarians should be set up to scrutinise the work of Government. To put it in psychological terms, there is a grave risk that both politics and the Security Service attract people with authoritarian personalities—those who say, "I know best," and who also say, "National security equals party interest equals my interest." For that reason an outside influence needs to be brought to bear upon such personalities, whether they are in the Security Service or at the top of the parliamentary world. There needs to be a countervailing force—a fresh wind or a fresh breeze—not to authorise the signing of warrants at 9.45 am but to examine budgets and the range of activities that are being pursued by the Security Service.
  Conservative Members will have gathered that the clause in the Bill that provides that no action shall be taken to further party political interests is greeted with hollow laughter on these Benches. In recent years, organisations on the Left—trade unions, CND and other organisations that have sought to scrutinise Government policy—have been subjected, on flimsy grounds, to far too many

  1155
  inquiries by the Security Service. The Opposition could point to many issues where capitalist activities have undermined parliamentary democracy.
  The Bill provides that a person can complain to the commissioner about the fact that he is under investigation. The commissioner can then investigate whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person belongs to a particular organisation. However, the commissioner cannot investigate whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that organisation.
  We have to return to what was said by Harold Acton: that absolute power corrupts. That is the safest axiom to adopt. Any inwardly turned organisation becomes sloppy, corrupt and maligned unless questions are asked about it by independent observers. Any inwardly turned organisation—whether it be the Security Service, a professional organisation or a commercial firm—eventually becomes sloppy, corrupt and maligned. As great power is vested in the Security Service, it is particularly important that there should be independent scrutiny.
  I am reminded not just of what Harold Acton said but of what Robert Michels said about the iron law of oligarchy—that, even in an organisation with democratic goals, power is concentrated at the top. People do not go to work each day saying to themselves, "I am pursuing the goal of national security. I am a missionary for national security." They construct ideas about national security and interpret it. That can lead to an inwardly turned, hierarchical organisation. Such people easily get out of control.
  That seems to have occurred most recently over phone tapping. There have been well-documented reports about it. There were reports in The Observer earlier this year about the tapping of the phones of 30,000 individuals and organisations. The number of British Telecom engineers was reported to have more than doubled. Lord Justice Lloyd may have investigated authorised warrants, but there has been no investigation of unauthorised warrants.
  The Bill contains a strange expression. It provides that investigation will not be unlawful if the Home Secretary has signed a warrant. It does not refer to an investigation being lawful if he has not signed a warrant. The result will be that certain people will believe that they are beyond scrutiny. Reference has been made to other democratic nations—Canada, Australia and the United States—which have realised that scrutiny of their secret services is inadequate. We should see this Bill for what it would be if it were introduced by any other nation. We should say that the Bill is inadequate. Even if it were to be introduced by South Africa, the Soviet Union or any other European country, we should say that it would not be able adequately to scrutinise the Security Service. For those reasons, there is growing unease on these Benches.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I have no doubt that the decision of the European Court has caused the Government to think seriously about the Bill.
  I welcome the measure and I am sure that many of my hon. Friends feel as I do. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, 79 years too late we have put our secret service on a statutory basis. We should not underestimate the Bill, as it is a major step forward. For
  1156
  the first time, after years of secrecy, the secret service is defined by statute. For the first time the powers of the secret service and the roles of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister in relation to it are absolutely clear. The Home Secretary's powers are clearly defined by the fact that every interference in the rights of individuals in Britain must be certified by warrant and that warrant can be questioned by the commissioner, a High Court judge. Members of the public can step in and say that they have been investigated wrongly, and there is a tribunal to investigate the incorrect use of power.
  Some of my hon. Friends may have reservations about the Bill, but we must take one step at a time, and the Bill should be welcomed. In the short time I am allowed, I shall address some of the criticisms of the Bill which I do not consider valid
  It has been said that we do not have a proper level of scrutiny. What level of scrutiny does Parliament wish to take to itself and how effective is that scrutiny? Probably, those who do the scrutinising will not be able to say very much about it. They will examine the work of the secret service but they will not be able to report it or tell anyone about it. As they will be inside the ring fence of secrecy protecting the activities of the secret service and protecting national secrets, clearly they cannot report it. That means that there will be no large debates about it in the House. There will not be a stop on the questions or on Adjournment debates on the activities of the secret service.
  Alternatively, the scrutiny could be outside the ring of secrecy. In those circumstances, hon. Members scrutinising the secret service would be supervising only budgets and making general reports and not having a great deal of say one way or the other in the activities of the secret service. That would not be any form of scrutiny.
  We have to decide. It seems to me that the first method of scrutiny could be carried out only by a very few select people and they would be tempted to question individual operations and look into day-to-day matters in the secret service. The public and the House would be totally wrong if they thought for one moment that the responsibility for any such scrutiny would rest with the whole House. We have to face the fact that it would then be outside the ring fence of secrecy.
  We have a system of accountability which is not enjoyed in the United States. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) spoke about what happened in the United States and we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about what happens overseas. In the United States, members of the committee sign the same declaration that is signed by every security operative in the CIA and the FBI. They cannot tell anyone either. Unlike the United States, we have senior Ministers, members of the legislature, who are answerable to the House. We have that safeguard. They have to answer for the secret service at the Dispatch Box. We have to realise that the fewer of us who know the details of what happens in the secret service, the better it will be for the activities of the secret service. The more people who know, the less likely the secret will remain secret. We have that safeguard and we should stick by it.
  The same arguments apply to accountability. If something goes wrong, Ministers have to answer to the House from the Dispatch Box. They have the support of the tribunal and the supervision of the commissioner.

  1157
  Quite a lot of accountability and scrutiny is provided for in the Bill. The Bill represents a major step forward. We should recognise that the House has far more control over the secret service than ever before.
  I emphasise that the Bill cannot be seen in isolation from the Official Secrets Bill. A whole range of items that were excluded from section 2 of the 1911 act have been built into that measure. The test of harm will be introduced into that Bill, which must be seen in parallel with the Bill that we are considering now. Every officer who is worried about the activities of the secret service can now go to the commissioner. A civil servant who has items in his possession that he feels should be brought into the public domain can go to a Member of Parliament. He can risk facing a charge, but the test of harm and the question as to whether it is in conflict with the national interest in any way will he decided by a jury. Quite clearly, in many cases the Attorney-General will find that those matters do not necessarily do any harm and should have been brought into the public domain.
  We have a new and sensible structure. It is a major step forward. I welcome it and hope that the Bill will go through the House unamended.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: First, I apologise to the House for not having listened to many of the speeches after the opening ones, but I understood that it would be very difficult to contribute to the debate.
  The opening speeches were very interesting, but the Home Secretary slipped from the quality of the debate when he attacked the Opposition for being soft on terrorism. That was an unnecessary claim, and it was particularly mean of him not to give way after making that challenging statement. There is no dispute in the House about our abhorrence of terrorism and our feeling that it should be eliminated. The disagreement is about the methods. We believe that the most effective way to stamp out terrorism is to make sure that we do not slip from our high standards of civil rights and that we do not take short cuts which deny civil rights, because that helps rather than hinders the terrorist.
  I wish to raise some questions with the Minister who will reply to the debate. A great many questions have been raised on clause 1—"The Security Service"—and most of the questions have been concentrated on subsection (2). I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a little more about subsection (3):
  "It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  Exactly what is the "economic well-being" of the United Kingdom is questionable. I am not sure why there should be a threat from people outside the United Kingdom rather than from people within it.
  Mr. Heifer: Conservative Members.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes the point: we are edging towards political argument. I hope that there will be more clarification in Committee.
  I would have some interest in this subsection if we were anxious to deal with United States imperialism and the way in which the United States tries to impose restrictions on British companies so that they comply with United States rather than British law. I should have thought that,
  1158
  because our security services are often closely tied in with those of the United States, there may be some problems in practice. I hope that the Minister will throw more light on that subject.
  As I understand it, the aim of the legislation is to deal with the security services. Those services must often work through the special branches of the individual police forces. The Metropolitan police are accountable to the House through the Home Secretary, but the rest of the police forces are not so accountable. Will actions carried out by the special branch officers on behalf of the security forces be covered by the Bill? They should be covered if the security services ask those officers to carry out a particular task.
  I understand that a two-way process operates between the special branch and the security services. Often, individual special branch police forces initiate surveillance or an action and pass on information to the security services. Will those officers be covered by the Bill" Will the complaints procedure, although weak, cover them?
  Vetting, or blacklisting, of individuals is another worry. Large numbers of people in the Civil Service and people who work directly for military contractors are subject to vetting, as are some individuals who supply services to military contractors. I know an individual in Stockport who works for a company that works for Ferranti in Stockport. Although he worked there for a considerable time and had gone in and out of the Ferranti plant, he became subject to vetting and was turned down. He was told that he could not have security clearance. It is difficult to check whether information held against an individual is genuine or whether there has been an error in the collecting of the information. It seems to me from my discussions with that individual that there can be no grounds for him being a security risk.
  Under the Bill, will it be possible for such an individual to make a complaint and obtain satisfaction so that he can tell whether the information held against him is accurate? If he is a villain, that will be easy to demonstrate and he will know whether the information is accurate. If he is innocent, it will be almost impossible to tell such a person what information is held against him, and impossible for him to set out to disprove it. We need to consider the vetting procedure carefully.
  What about the possibility of the security services trespassing or bugging or damaging property? What is the position with entrapment, or leading a person on so that he may commit a crime? Colin Breeze from my constituency is in custody in Miami in the United States. Clearly, he was entrapped by agents of the American Government into becoming involved in attempting to sell helicopters to Iran. His defence was that he was led on by agents of the American Government into a position where he could be convicted of a crime. What will happen in respect of warrants when what is normally an illegal activity is permissible? Will the legislation cover entrapment and provocation?
  How accountable should the services he to Parliament? I have been amazed at the number of Conservative Members who have argued that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted. If we can trust a person to be Home Secretary, Members of Parliament—or some of them—can be trusted with that role. Most Governments would claim that at least half a dozen Members could be Home Secretary. If, in a parliamentary democracy, one says that a substantial number of people in government are capable

  1159
  of being Home Secretary, one must accept that a reasonable number of people in the Opposition can be trusted to fill that role.
  Once one accepts that sufficient people can hold that office, there is no difficulty in finding a group of people who could sit on a parliamentary Select Committee to oversee the responsibilities of the security services. For Conservative Members to say that they do not believe that a group exists in the House that could be trusted with that role is to under-value the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is dangerous to say that, at any one time, only one Member of Parliament, the Home Secretary—or perhaps the Prime Minister—can be trusted with the knowledge of the security of the state.
  I have heard the argument that we should not increase the number of people with knowledge of the security services, and that there is always the possibility that information will slip out. If we want to make the security services accountable and to guarantee the right of all
  individuals to live in a free society—after all, that is the purpose of democracy—we should have parliamentary accountability, not the weak accountability which the legislation proposes.
  I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions, and that we shall probe deeply into the rest in Committee.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. William Powell: A number of hon. Members have said that the Bill may be 79 or so years late, but that is not my line. I regret the fact that the Bill has become necessary. As a high Tory traditionalist, I admire prerogative powers and the use to which they have been put through many hundreds of years of our history. I regret the fact that developments in recent years with the security services have made the use of prerogative power—which was once so effective—a matter that must be codified in statute. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
  For the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and a number of Conservative Back Benchers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), I support the Bill. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—the first speech of freedom for him in 10 years—was a powerful contribution, as were the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr Wheeler), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I support all the reasons they gave as to why the Bill sets the right balance of judgment and will be in our country's interests.
  There has been considerable discussion about clause 1(2), which states:
  "The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions' intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
  I hope that hon. Members will not be naive about the vulnerability to blackmail of people in the security services, who may be of assistance to agents of foreign powers. It is entirely right and proper that, in their vigilance in upholding our democracy, the security services
  1160
  should have regard to blackmail, as it can undermine the democracy that we seek to protect and that they are employed to protect. It is right that they should seek to inform themselves about relevant matters on that issue.
  Much of the debate has dealt with accountability. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) conceded, as he had to, that when it was announced that this Bill would be introduced, he welcomed it and said, both on television and in this House, that he expected, subject to its contents, to be able to support it. The question that he was reluctant to be asked and which must be asked and answered is: when he said that, did he have any reason to suppose that the Bill would contain provisions for a parliamentary scrutiny committee? So far as I am aware, in all the discussions on security issues down the years and certainly since 1979, there has been not one word or suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, successive Home Secretaries or any person speaking on behalf of the Government that the Government would welcome, still less introduce, a parliamentary scrutiny committee.
  If he gave consideration to that question and still went ahead—he must have known that there was no possibility of any Bill containing that—the right hon. Gentleman was a fool. If he gave that commitment, subject of course to the small print—never forget that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—without considering that question, the most charitable thing that can be said on his behalf is that he will go to his grave saying with Macbeth:
  "And that which should accompany old age,
  As honour, love, obedience, troops of friends,
  I must not look to have",
  because he will have made a grave error.
  At no stage since 1979, in any discussions on security matters, has any person speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government from top to bottom suggested that the Government were in favour of a parliamentary scrutiny committee. They would have been complete fools if they had, not just for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary but for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and recently underlined so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West.
  When we listen to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, several of us feel that in opposition they wish to take part in security decisions or that they wish to be given privy information about matters which have properly been denied them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said, if a scrutiny committee were to be established, the Opposition would be disappointed on all fronts. They would either be within the walls of secrecy, in which case they would be in the somewhat embarrassing position that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) found himself in on the Zircon affair, or they would be outside the walls of secrecy and would have little knowledge or information about what was happening. What a most disappointing and frustrating experience that would be.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), in an engagingly irrelevant speech, referred to the allegations made against Sir Roger Hollis. If we had a parliamentary scrutiny committee investigating the affairs of Sir Roger Hollis, would we be any the wiser? If it reported one way or the other, would its conclusion be the correct one? Of course not. We know that, to all intents and purposes, half of MI5 think that he was a spy and the

  1161
  other half are outraged by the suggestion. Only the Soviets could assist us, and even if they opened their files, several of us would conclude that disinformation was being put out and we would get no nearer the truth. A parliamentary scrutiny committee would come nowhere near resolving these issues.
  Several hon. Members said that they would prefer the scope of the Bill to be wider. I am glad that it is not. These matters are properly entrusted to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his successors. If the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Sparkbrook were to become First Secretary to the Treasury and Home Secretary, I would have every confidence in their abilities to carry out their constitutional functions in this area, as they would be subject, as would anybody holding those offices and having to consider these matters, to relevant pressures of a sort which I am afraid right hon. and hon. Gentlemen simply could not experience. They would be in the operational front line and would have to deal with matters as they arose in the context in which they arose. It is right and proper that those matters should be entrusted in the traditional way, and for the House to have or not to have confidence in those office holders and to be able to question them in the usual way.
  The case deployed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and subsequent right hon. and hon. Friends is overwhelming. I give this Bill my enthusiastic support on its Second Reading.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: When I heard the Queen's Speech and the proposal for this Bill, I turned to several of my colleagues, some of whom are on the other side of the House, and said, "That worries me no end because we shall put power in the hands of a Minister." Although we can ask Ministers questions in the House, I do not trust this Government to act on our behalf and in our interests. I might trust them more if they were not so authoritarian, but they are one of the most authoritarian Governments that I remember.
  I remember when the Prime Minister referred to trade unionists as "the enemy within". I have not forgotten that. Clause 1(2) states that the function of the service is not only the protection of national security but its protection
  "from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
  The word "or" is used twice.
  Some hon. Members may not be aware that we had to fight violently to get parliamentary democracy. People do not like to be reminded of it, but we cut off a king's head. It must be remembered that a certain amount of force was used. I am not suggesting that there should be further upheaval or that we should cut off people's heads, but there are people in this country who are not wedded to our concept of parliamentary democracy. They are democrats, but they believe that there are other forms of democracy that are better than ours. They could be regarded as subversives. Some of my friends are philosophical anarchists. In some respects, there is little difference between them and the Conservative party, because they are all individualists who believe in individualism.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Name them.
  Mr. Heffer: I could name a few anarchist Conservative Members; some of them are sitting on the Front Bench.
  1162
  Philosophical anarchists do not believe in our concept of parliamentary democracy, so they could be regarded as subversives.
  Industrial syndicalists believe that there should be a Parliament of working people through trade unions and argue against our idea of a centralised political regime. Are they subversives? Under the Bill, they could be treated as such.
  Conservative Members may not have suffered from being on a blacklist. The Observer phoned me recently and said, "We have the list of people on the blacklist in the north-west, and your name figures twice." I said, "Only twice? I should have thought it would have figured more than twice." Where did those people get my name? Who was watching me? Special branch was watching me. I was told by one special branch officer in Liverpool: "You are on our list; your name is well there." No doubt that fact was passed on to the Economic League, which distributed it.
  Some people equate parliamentary democracy with the capitalist system. They do not believe that there can be another system, equally democratic, that does not accept capital control. What is meant by "subversion"?
  I accept that we must protect ourselves against invasion. When I was a Minister, a chap came along—he never said who he was—and warned us about the Russians and east Europeans. I said, "This is very interesting, and I do not disagree with a word you have said, but does it apply to the Americans and all the others?" He said, "T hat is a different matter; we must be concerned about the Russians."
  I hope that the Security Service is not as it is portrayed in "Game, Set and Match". In that programme, they seem to be watching and working against each other all the time. Half the members of the Security Service believe that Hollis was a spy; the other half do not. It would be better if there was an annual congress of world spies. It would save a lot of money—they could give each other their secrets—and a lot of lives, and it would be more sensible than the present position.
  I am especially worried about clause 1(2) and the idea of the enemy within. We know that members of CND have been supervised, their phones bugged and some of their houses broken into. I never thought other than that my telephone was bugged. Some of the conversations that my wife has with her mother must be very interesting. The people listening must think that they are talking in a special code. This is a very dangerous Bill.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: Sinister.
  Mr. Heffer: It is sinister.
  Conservative Members have tried to knock the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he rightly argued for parliamentary scrutiny. It is right that we should have an extended committee. Of course it will not be able to look into every aspect of security, but it could concern itself with internal subversives, whatever that means, and who is being bugged because they are regarded as internal subversives.
  The Government know that there is deep feeling in the country that something must be done about security. There is much worry and fear among people about the role of the Security Service. That worry was most apparent when the Wright story came out. We heard that people

  1163
  were prepared to undermine a democratically elected Government and were looking for dirt to throw at the Labour party's leaders. Mention was made earlier of an interesting book called "One Girl's War". People were entering other people's houses, going through their property and bugging their telephones quite wrongly and illegally. Under the Bill, the Government are legalising something that is fundamentally wrong.
  I shall vote against Second Reading and hope that the Bill will be improved. If it is not, I hope that we will all vote against it.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I am genuinely sorry that there is not more cross-party unity on this measure. The division is between those who know much about the Security Service and the rest of us who stick to important landmarks. The division is not between those who think that this is a good Bill, or those who think it is a bad Bill. Almost no hon. Member has suggested that the Bill does not have merit; the main suggestion has been that it does not go far enough.
  We have had a most interesting debate. It has been much more interesting than listening to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) at 1.15 in the morning. A number of interesting points were made about the drafting of the Bill, many of which were somewhat churlish. The Bill is relatively simple and easy to understand and is pretty clear and concise. I have had the good fortune, if those are the right words, to sit on two Standing Committees, but it seems to me that the Bill is relatively comprehensible and easier to understand than many others.
  We should be clear at the outset that there has been little public pressure for the enactment of the Bill. Few hon. Members have received correspondence from droves of anxious constituents demanding this legislation. The media have hardly conducted a sustained campaign urging us to implement this measure. The public are intrigued by the Security Service. The sense of mystery and secrecy ensures that newspaper speculation about its activities is avidly read and enjoyed, but the basic truth remains that the vast majority of our constituents know and accept that the Security Service is there to protect our liberties and freedoms from those within and without who would see them destroyed. Of necessity, it carries out its duties behind a ring of secrecy.
  I go further than that. In spite of the suggestions of intrigue and incompetence which emerged into daylight last year, most people in our country accept that by and large, the Security Service does a crucial and difficult job, loyally and successfully. By its nature, the bad press that the Service has had from time to time is highly partial and, almost certainly, an inaccurate assessment of its effectiveness. However, we must be protected from rotten apples without impairing the operations of the service. That is what the legislation will achieve.
  Most people who have no reason to fear the security services accept the balance between the need to protect the rights of the individual and the need to protect the security of the state. They accept also that greater public accountability cannot be at the cost of breaching the
  1164
  security surrounding the service's operational activities. Therefore, great duty and confidence is imposed on the director-general. Nothing in the Bill changes that key aspect of our Security Service. When Sir Findlater Stewart produced his report to the then Prime Minister in 1947, he said of the post of director-general:
  "The appointment is one of great responsibility, calling for unusual experience and a rare combination of qualities. But having got the right man, there is no alternative to giving him the widest discretion in the means he uses and the direction in which he applies them."
  That must be right. It underlines the fact that, in the end, the director-general is responsible to the Home Secretary for ensuring that the balance between individual freedoms and liberties and the interests of the state is maintained. I stress that I do not believe that there is any widespread disagreement about the sufficiency of that process.
  What should be our attitude to the Second Reading? First, I assume from the words used by the Home Secretary during the Queen's Speech debate that the security services wish the legislation to be enacted. If true, that is to their credit and underlines their commitment to ensuring that correct procedures are followed. Secondly, the measure is part of the Government's step-by-step reform of the minefield of official secrets and related matters.
  We frequently hear high-minded statements of principle from Opposition Members, when they were in Government, they were either unable or unwilling to tackle such difficult issues. This Government have grasped them. We debate official secrets next week. The Government have also rightly received credit for the Interception of Communications Act 1985. There were all sorts of dire warnings from the Labour party at the time, but the Interception of Communications Act is widely regarded as working effectively and well. In addition, on no fewer than nine occasions, the Prime Minister has made clear and concise statements on secrecy matters that were of concern to the House.
  Thirdly, this measure deals with a minority unease, in certain quarters, that the service is insufficiently accountable. There has been some public concern, and some misunderstanding perhaps, about the service's role, but the Bill goes quite far enough to counter such fears. It not only gives statutory authority for the existence of the service but makes the director-general personally responsible under the law for ensuring the political neutrality of the service and underlines that it cannot be used as a party political toy. It lays down the role and functions of the Security Service, and effectively uses a definition of subversion that was used by the Labour party when it was in Government in 1975.
  Above all, the Bill sets out what we might call the public's consumer protection measures—the commissioner and the tribunal. The mechanism for a member of the service who feels a need for external complaint was brought in last year. The mechanism for an aggrieved citizen who feels that he is being unfairly treated is now clearly set in place in the Bill. The tribunal, which is able to investigate all complaints except those relating to warrants—they will be investigated by a commissioner—will be able also to award compensation, to quash warrants, and to destroy wrongly kept records.
  That is an important step forward. By the nature of the issues that we are considering, it is clearly difficult for an aggrieved citizen to seek redress without breaching the ring

  1165
  of secrecy that must inevitably exist and without which the effectiveness of the service would be undermined. The great success of this measure is that the Government have now found an ingenious formula for achieving just that. At present there is no redress for the public, but we are now enacting the necessary legislation to protect the right of the individual while not undermining the interests of the state. Opposition Members may care to consider that Socialist New Zealand is following exactly the same course as proposed in this short and sensible Bill. It deserves the support of the whole House tonight.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The only aspect of the Bill that I welcome is that, for the first time, it puts the Security Service on a statutory footing. I said "Security Service", but we are talking only about MI5. Does the Bill apply to MI6 and other intelligence services? There are several intelligence services scattered around the state.
  When the Home Secretary introduced the Bill this afternoon, he gave a brief potted history of MI5, but he missed out a key element in the early stages of MI5—that of the Zinoviev letter, which involved MI5 interfering in the politics of the country. It was successful in bringing down a Labour Government. From that, we move on directly to the "Spycatcher" affair, which is the reason for the Bill. Central to the "Spycatcher" affair was the plot to subvert the Labour Government of Harold Wilson. There can be little doubt that MI5 acted outside its powers when it did that.
  The Government spread a trail of diversion by taking "Spycatcher" through the Australian courts, claiming how terrible it was that Peter Wright had broken his pledge of silence. When we mentioned the plot to subvert the Labour Government, all we got was shock, horror. There was no action. If the boot had been on the other foot and the Conservatives had been affected, there would have been screams for court action and parliamentary scrutiny. We have had none of that.
  Hon. Members know that language is important in Acts of Parliament. I draw attention to Clause 2(2)(b), which the Home Secretary quoted. It states:
  "That the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party."
  It may not do that directly, but that does not stop it running down another political party. It could claim that it was not doing anything to the advantage of any particular party, but it could run down a party.
  We know that, if the service decided to run down a party, it would be biased against the Labour Party and the trade union movement, because of the class nature of the Security Service personnel. On the one hand, there are those on the extreme Right, such as Peter Wright, who are in the service because they are cold warriors and are anti-Socialists, or there are the Oxford-Cambridge set, who we know are the ideal models to act as spies for foreign countries. Neither of those groups had its roots in the working class or in ordinary people, so there is a bias straight away against the trade union and labour movement.
  I wish now to make a couple of brief but important points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about warrants, especially when he said that the criteria should be public, precise and limited before a warrant is issued. I ask the Minister whether a warrant that he signs will be authority
  1166
  to break or enter into the home of one person or, when he signs his name once, will it apply to everyone within a particular organisation? That is what happened, for example, in the case of the National Council for Civil Liberties when my hon. Friend the Member fcr Peckham (Mrs. Harman) had her telephone tapped. The CND, too, was the subject of bugging and phone tapping.
  If it will not apply to just one person, why not? Why can the Minister, with one stroke of the pen—for instance, because he is worried about the population of Liverpool revolting against the poll tax—sign a warrant so that the Security Service can break into anyone's property in Liverpool? We need to know why it is not limited to one. The Minister should explain that to the House, because it opens up dangerous precedents.
  I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that there is no substitute for proper democratic accountability to the House. It was an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members and to the country when a previous Home Secretary said that Lord Bridge investigated over the weekend all the warrants for telephone tappings that had taken place since the 1950s and found not a mistake in any of them. We all know that that was nonsense and a whitewash and unacceptable. The question about the warrants is a serious one, which we need answered.
  At the weekend, The Observer described the Bill as "the breaking and entering Bill" which is the serious aspect of it. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that the Bill is not so much about civil liberties. as about the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. I do not agree. if we want to sort out the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, other methods could he used, such as bringing in management consultants. The civil liberties aspect is crucial. For the first time, we are authorising people in law to break into and enter other people's homes, which is a most dangerous precedent. Authorising burglary in that way is a slippery slope, which should worry us all.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has raised in this House time and time again the death of Hilda Murrell. There were strong reports that her house was the subject of an investigation of a breaking and entering, perhaps by official parties. What happens when, in such a case, the security services have authorisation from a warrant and someone dies? Does the person who killed her say, "I will not go to court. The police must let me go when I am arrested, because I have been warranted to break in. The Home Secretary signed the warrant and said I could break in. I am sorry it was an awful accident and the woman died when she found out I was burgling her home, but I had authority from the Home Secretary"? The Minister should refer to those serious and new implications.
  I have thought seriously about the balance argument. We should say that the threat to life could be so important that it warranted somebody breaking and entering. However, I do not believe that that is a good enough argument, because in such circumstances powers already exist in the normal course of the law. A police officer can always arrest someone and obtain a proper warrant signed by a magistrate to search legally, and not without the individual's knowledge. If someone is regarded as a serious threat to the lives of other people, the surveillance should

  1167
  be done properly. The authorisation of breaking and entering is the most dangerous aspect of the Bill. This is an anti-civil liberties Bill and it is wrong.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I shall not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) except to say that he did not make it clear how parliamentary scrutiny would meet any of the criticisms that he has made. I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who spoke about the drafting of the Bill. It is clear and straightforward to understand. Although I am not a lawyer and have great difficulty understanding many Bills, the intention of this Bill is clear and for that reason I am happy to support it.
  Despite having read much of the fiction mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I hope that it is possible to be reasonably objective about the Bill. There is little doubt that, bearing in mind the fact that the Government have no more important duty than the maintenance of internal and external security, this measure is a rational response to recent events and discussion inside and outside Parliament. As a layman, it has been interesting to note the contrast between the constructive points and criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and the weakness of the Opposition position during this debate.
  It is especially unfortunate that the Opposition leadership, apparently following a U-turn, now wish to attack the Bill. The Opposition are on uncertain ground here and, although it was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Denton Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I make no apology for reminding Opposition Members that they are on uncertain ground in relation to other aspects of defence and security. One example was the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which was debated last week, and another was the overturning of the Labour party leadership on defence issues at the Labour party conference.
  It was clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Opposition, although they may mount a critique, have no alternative proposals of any value. They depart from common sense in their approach to the matter. In recent years, MI5 has been involved in creating a network of governmental defences against threats from the extreme Left and the extreme Right. Those threats come from espionage, terrorism, sabotage and subversion. I agree with those who say that we must carefully consider the definitions of those words, and I am sure that they will be discussed in more detail in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was right to refer to the sophistication of some terrorist and related organisations.
  The Bill provides greater ministerial control over the Security Service. In the words of the deputy leader of the Labour party—before his U-turn—it is a step in the right direction. Opposition Members have called repeatedly for the necessity for parliamentary control of the Security Service. The call has come at various times from people with views as diverse as those of the right hon. Member for
  1168
  Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on the Right and of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on the Left.
  To widen through parliamentary scrutiny the number of people who, to use the phrase, "need to know", flies in the face of common sense. There have been many convincing speeches by Conservative Members which explain why it would be wrong to break the barrier of secrecy and to go outside the tradition in this matter. Even a person who knows little about the secret services in this country must accept that it would be wrong to do that. I have been further convinced by the arguments that I have heard this evening.
  Mr. John Greenway: It has been suggested in the debate that the Security Service sought to bring down the Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s. As the head of the Security Service was unable to detect what was happening, how could a Committee of the House have any better opportunity to find out what the Security Service was doing?
  Mr. Thompson: I accept that argument.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in May 1985:
  "The need for external oversight has been argued at length in the House and came up again during the passage of the Interception of Communications Bill. All Governments run the security services in the same way and on the same lines, because they know they are in power that that is the best way to run them. They must run under unified management. They cannot be referred to an external group."—[Official Report, 9 May 1985; Vol. 78, c. 897.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has emphasised that point well, and I agree with it.
  The suggestion of the opponents of the Bill would risk the confidence of our allies in the secrecy of operations of our secret service. The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Donaldson, in his "Spycatcher" judgment, said:
  "It may be that the time has come when Parliament should regularise the position of the service."
  That is exactly what the Bill seeks to do, and that is why it is a good Bill. I find suspect many of the criticisms that I have heard tonight.
  The vital responsibilities of the modern Security Service—MI5—stem from its great and rapid expansion during the second world war, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described in his opening speech. The recent priorities of the Security Service have been determined by the extent to which hostile intelligence services had succeeded in the 1930s in recruiting ideologically motivated spies in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made it clear that he did not fully understand the Bill, because he kept referring to the secret "services". It is clear from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and from the wording of the Bill that we are discussing the secret "service"—MI5.
  I believe that it is a good and well drafted Bill. The arguments, particularly by Conservative Members, mean that it should have the full-hearted support of all hon. Members tonight. It is sad that we do not have cross-party unity on this important issue affecting the defence and security of this country.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: We have had an interesting and informative debate on the Security Service and the Bill. It has become clear to me that the question of scrutiny, or accountability, is now firmly on the political agenda and that it is only a question of time before some mechanism is introduced to enhance the accountability of the service. That would improve not only the confidence in the service and the outside perception of it, but the feeling of trust that we have in the service.
  Every hon. Member—with no exceptions—who has taken part in the debate believes in the need for an effective and efficient Security Service to look after our national interest and protect our parliamentary democracy. There is no dispute about that. The dispute has been on the balance between national interests in security terms and civil liberties. The Government have got the skew wrong and have taken too little account of civil liberties.
  During the debate on the Queen's speech, the Home Secretary referred to the Bill as "an essay in openness." Essentially, however, the Bill is about maintaining MI5 as a closed and secret society. The inevitable consequence is that the freedom of the individual is impaired through the intrusion of the state into his private life.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government "had the skew wrong" and implied that civil liberties were under threat. Will he cite examples to show how civil liberties have been damaged by the security services in recent years and say in what measure the Bill will fail to safeguard civil liberties better than they have been safeguarded hitherto?
  Mr. Randall: I shall cite some instances in which it has been alleged that civil liberties have been impaired.
  Mr. Whitney: It has been alleged.
  Mr. Randall: There are other cases, too. What Cathy Massiter had to say showed unequivocally that there was an abuse of civil liberties. Such abuse has resulted in a loss of confidence in the service, and that is not good for our nation, our national security or our democracy.
  The Bill is a minimalist Bill produced by the Home Secretary to deal with the pressures that are now emerging from the European Court of Human rights, especially now that the Hewitt-Harman case has been declared admissible. The Government have been forced to introduce the Bill rather hurriedly and it has not been subject to the consultation that it deserved.
  The Home Secretary said that the Bill had been given "cool consideration", in conjunction with MI5. He said that one of the reasons for it was that the political kaleidoscope had changed, whatever that may mean, and added that the Government had not been forced to produce the Bill.
  The Bill has been introduced in this hurried way because in the Hewitt-Harman case there is an alleged violation of civil rights by the security services in the course of their investigations. The case arises from article 13 of the European convention of human rights, which is all about right and freedoms. It says:
  "Everyone whose rights and freedoms — are violated"—
  even by the Government—
  "shall have an effective remedy before a national authority".
  It is that effective remedy which allegedly does not exist.
  1170
  The Bill represents a wasted opportunity. The members of the Security Service accept that parliamentarians have to take civil liberties into account and I believe that many members of MI5 would not object to a more open system that allowed parliamentary or external scrutiny. I do not know who wrote the Bill, but one has the impression that it was written not by the Home Secretary but by a technocrat or a member of the Security Service who does not understand parliamentary drafting. The Bill has serious weaknesses.
  The Home Secretary is letting the Security Service down in failing to restore the public's confidence and trust. In his opening speech he failed to deal adequately with the question why other countries feel that they can proceed with a more open arrangement. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) dealt with the McDonald report in detail, saying that there were lessons to be learned from that system. Other hon. Members have referred to what is happening in Australia and elsewhere.
  What is it that makes Britain so different? I hope that the Minister of State will tell us why we have gone for a closed rather than the more liberal approach that is being adopted in other friendly countries with systems based on ours.
  Mr. William Powell: When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said. both in the Chamber and outside, that he expected to support the Bill subject to its small print, did he have any reasonable cause to believe that the Bill would contain provision for parliamentary scrutiny?
  Mr. Randall: At the time that that statement was made, no information was available. My right hon. Friend has said that the Bill does not meet three criteria which he laid down clearly and which everybody will be able to read in Hansard tomorrow. That is why the Opposition feel that the Bill in its present form is not acceptable. The notion of putting the Security Service on a statutory footing naturally appeals to all hon. Members because it is at least a step forward. Unfortunately, as I have already said, the Bill does not go far enough, and the skew away from civil liberties is unacceptable.
  The White Paper on the interception of communications in February 1985 defined national security. It said:
  "The Secretary of State may issue warrants on grounds of national security if he considers that the information to be acquired under the warrant is necessary in the interests of national security"—
  and it goes on—
  "in support of the Government's defence and foreign policies."
  What does that mean for a member of CND? That question has already been asked several times. In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary's predecessor attempted to say that CND members would not be regarded as subversives and need not fear being regarded as acting against the
  interests of national security.
  I hope that CND members are not regarded as subversives. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said that we can be sure that in practice CND members are not regarded as subversive, how can we be confident about that? My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave us four definitions of "subversive" tonight. There are no definitions in the Bill, and that

  1171
  leaves us unclear about what it is all about. I hope that in Committee we shall have some definitions and that the Minister will give us some information about that tonight.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) gave the impression that he believed that none of the disclosures could lead to the idea that there was something wrong with the service. Yet the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that Sir John Donaldson had said that we should be naive to think that bugging and burglary did not take place in the service. During the "Spycatcher" hearing, Sir John said:
  "In defence of the realm there must be stringent limits of what breeches of the law are considered excusable … covert invasions of privacy (what Peter Wright called burglary) may in certain circumstances be a different matter … it is absurd to contend that any breeches of the law will constitute such a "wrong doing" as to deprive MI5 of the secrecy without which it cannot operate."
  So Sir John was saying that crimes were committed but that some of them were excusable.
  Clause 3(2) speaks of the authorising of actions specified in warrants. Certain actions will be unlawful unless they are covered by a warrant. What are the limits on what can be specified in a warrant? For example, may the Security Service install bugging equipment? Would it be included in the warrant? The House should note that bugging and other surveillance equipment is still unregulated by the law, despite recommendations of controls by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, the Young committee on privacy and the Law Commission report on breach of confidence. The only guidelines we now have are the Home Office's guidelines to the police on the use of such equipment. If the service used such equipment, would not that violate article 8 of the European convention on human rights? If it would, should not the use of such devices be included in the Bill?
  Why has not the Home Secretary made warrants subject to judicial authority rather than to administrative decision by himself, bearing in mind the fact that the Royal Commission on criminal procedure recommended that a person should have his interests represented by the Official Solicitor at a hearing before authorisation by judicial authority? That was the question raised by several hon. Members, who asked about the way in which the warrants should be issued and about the mechanisms for dealing with them.
  Again, in the context of warrants, what criteria will the Home Secretary use in deeming it necessary for action to be taken to obtain information? Clause 3(2)(a) states that the Secretary of State
  "may … issue a warrant … if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary".
  How does he decide what is necessary? Further on, the clause expands on that as necessary to obtain information which
  "cannot reasonably be obtained".
  We are being asked again to sign a blank cheque for the Government. How can the House be confident that the proposals on warrants will work in the way that the Home Secretary believes they will?
  I want to say a word or two about the Security Service tribunal. Schedule 1(1) states:
  "Any person may complain to the Tribunal if he is aggrieved by anything—the Service has done—to him".
  How will a citizen lawfully be able to discover that he has been the subject of action by the Security Service? Does the
  1172
  Minister agree that the Bill's provisions make it exceedingly difficult—nay, impossible—to obtain such information? In West Germany, if a person's telephone is tapped, when the surveillance work has been completed that person is notified that it has been. Why cannot we do the same in this country?
  It has been alleged that there are files on people such as CND members. What will be their status? How will that information be used by the Security Service? Would it affect job and career prospects? I want further information on that.
  Mr. Mullin: Will my hon. Friend pause to contemplate the front page of the Sunday Express of 14 February 1988? It is headed:
  "Labour MP and the Girl Reds".
  There is a large photograph of a former Labour Minister. The photograph is 20 years old and was leaked this year to the Sunday Express, obviously by someone in the Security Service. Is there any mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the person responsible for that leak accounts to Parliament for his actions?
  Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend has asked an interesting question, and I hope that the Minister will make an appropriate comment on it.
  Clause 2 refers to the director-general. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the service will be placed on a statutory footing. Will the director-general become a more public figure? Will he appear on television? Will he start to educate people in order to build up their trust? Those are serious questions because, until there is contact with the public, trust and confidence will be eroded. That is a practical suggestion, and if I were a Conservative Member, I would positively encourage the director-general to have more contact with the public.
  There is a political section at the end of the clause. I am not sure why it has been included, but I wonder whether it is to reassure the House and the country that the Bill contains measures to prevent the overthrow by the Security Service of a future Government of any political complexion.
  The Wright book contained allegations that MI5 was playing that role. How will that be enforced to ensure that there is no political bias? How will misdemeanours be brought to light? What penalties will there be if something goes wrong inside the service? Is the Home Secretary using that clause, together with Sir Philip Woodfield, the staff counsellor, to create the illusion that there will be no political bias in the Security Service? That is nothing more than window dressing.
  The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who is not in his seat, said that there was a divergence between clause 2 and paragraph 4 of the Maxwell Fyfe directive. The Maxwell Fyfe description is stronger, and I cannot understand why there is a divergence. I put it down to bad drafting.
  The clause dealing with warrants asks Parliament to approve actions by the service that will become legal as a result of the warrants being issued. For other members of society, such actions would be regarded as illegal. Parliament is being asked to do that without any information about the extent to which illegal practices have taken place in the past. If the Minister answers no other questions, will he tell us specifically what the warrants will be used for? I do not want him to use the

  1173
  words in the Bill. Similarly, when a person is vetted for employment purposes, why should he not be informed subsequently that that has happened?
  The Bill is a great disappointment. It is vague, it is imprecise, and it will have little effect on the way in which the Security Service operates. The Bill fails to provide adequate safeguards against abuse and illegal activity by MI5. It contains no measures to improve the service's efficiency and effectiveness. Of special importance is the fact that the Bill includes little to enhance the civil liberties and genuine freedoms of the people of Britain.
  At the same time, the Bill contains no measures to introduce external oversight, which we believe is vital to the service. the Bill is a wasted opportunity, and we shall be voting against it tonight.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on his excellent speech. In the course of my remarks, I shall answer the one question to which he sought an answer above all else, but I shall be unable to deal with his 16 or 17 other questions, which will have to wait until the Committee stage. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the question of oversight will play a major part in our debates, which are certain to be interesting.
  Several notable speeches have been made this evening, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). There were also four short, precise and pointed speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), for Corby (Mr. Powell), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson).
  I also listened with great care to the constructive criticisms made of the Bill by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason). For one extraordinary moment, I thought that I might agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), at least for the first three minutes of his speech, but that proved not to be the case.
  There were misconceived speeches as well. I may tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and all his right hon. and hon. Friends that I shall not comment on the security service's operational details. I shall not comment either, and nor will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on cases that are currently before the European Court. I say to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is not in his place at present, that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North was right in stating that the Bill refers to the Security Service and to the Security Service alone.
  The Bill is about the trust and the confidence that is placed upon Parliament and upon Government to keep our country in peace and safety.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Patten: I hope to respond to at least one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech. I have little time in which to reply to all right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in what has been a very full debate.
  The Bill places on Parliament a responsibility for establishing the scope of the Security Service's work, upon which so many lives depend—and I do not use that phrase
  1174
  lightly. For the first time ever, a Government of this country are prepared to bring this issue openly to Parliament and to let Parliament decide. Upon that, almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken is agreed. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was able to go at least that far.
  When this issue was first discussed during our debate on the Loyal Address, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) heard my right hon. Friend's description of the Bill and told the House that he welcomed it. I quote him exactly:
  "This is a small concession … We welcome it and hope—hope subject to examination of the Bill—to support what the Home Secretary proposes."—[Official Report, 23 November 1988; Vol. 142. c.137.]
  The right hon. Gentleman's judgement was right then, but deeply flawed later. He made his statement of support both in the House and, on television to the nation later that night on "Newsnight", after my right hon. Friend's Bill was published.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is a very good writer, and a very good writer generally has to be a very good and rapid reader. My right hon. Friend's Bill is very short and succinct, and I simply do not believe that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not fully understand what it contained before he went on television that night. Who knows what went on around the shadow Cabinet table after Labour's fiasco over the vote on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill vote?
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a secret!
  Mr. Patten: It is indeed a secret.
  This is a very sad half-turn by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The Bill is a liberating measure: first, it puts the Security Service on a firm statutory basis under the clear authority of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. William Powell: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether at any stage since 1979 any spokesman for Her Majesty's Government has given the House any cause to believe that the Government would favour a parliamentary scrutiny committee? Was that information available at the time when the right hon. Gentleman spoke?
  Mr. Patten: On no occasion has such an impression been given. We have made the information freely available, and it was of course available to the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke, both in the House and on television.
  Secondly, the Bill is a liberating measure in that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will personally authorise certain actions only when he is satisfied in the light of statutory safeguards. Thirdly, it provides for the independent review by a commissioner—not a member of the Government, but a senior member of the judiciary—of the exercise of those powers. Fourthly, it allows any person or organisation to complain and to seek remedies in respect of any alleged actions by the service that have affected them.
  The Bill sits alongside my right hon. Friend's proposals for restricting the scope of official secrets legislation. We shall debate those proposals next week. The true effect of the two measures together is to provide reassurance and an avenue for complaints about matters relating to the

  1175
  authority and control of the Security Service, while continuing to ensure that the secrets on which all our lives depend can be fully protected.
  Both my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—and, I think, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West—raised the important issue of economic well-being and exactly what that meant. The term is embodied in article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The function defined in clause 1(3) represents no change in the work that the service has been undertaking for many years. It follows exactly the careful and narrow drafting already approved by Parliament in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and it addresses the safeguarding of the country against hostile foreign actions and adverse developments which could affect our economic well-being. Of course, the Security Service is not solely responsible for those matters. Others are concerned—the Army, the special branch and the police. It is nevertheless essential that the service should be able to contribute where it can do so.
  I must say that I welcomed the defence by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) of the excellence of the Home Office draftsmen. The Bill is indeed excellently drafted; it is a first-rate Bill, and I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that. She, of course, spent some time as an administrative trainee in the Home Office, and I understand that she was marked down at an early stage for speedy promotion. I can reveal what could well be an official secret and get me into trouble. A member of the personnel department in the Home Office came to me recently and said that the department wanted to launch a competition for that most important of posts, my replacement principal private secretary. He said that had the hon. Lady still been in the Civil Service she might well have been a leading competitor.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred to the definition of national security, a matter that concerns many hon. Members. The concept of national security is recognised in the European convention on human rights. It is also recognised in legislation that was introduced by the last Labour Administration—in the industrial relations legislation, equal opportunities legislation and other measures. The definition of national security is entirely consistent with the interpretation that is referred to in the White Paper. The Bill covers more than the Security Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his opening speech that the Security Service is not primarily concerned with matters that relate to defence and foreign policy. However, the Security Service cannot be inert if it is to contribute to thwarting threats to national security.
  National security is generally understood to refer to matters that relate to the survival or the well-being of the nation. That must cover matters relating to defence and foreign policy. It would be inexcusable if the Security Service were to be disbarred, in a statutory sense, from helping to thwart an armed attack on this country, or if it failed to act if it came across a possible act of sabotage, or if it failed to act if it could contribute to identifying or frustrating the hostile intentions of a foreign Government.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The anxiety is that the words are phrased in such a way as to countenance Government
  1176
  policy in relation to foreign affairs and that the definition is so broad that ordinary citizens, going about the legitimate task of challenging Government policy, could be designated under the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Patten: I can only repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he responded to an earlier intervention by my hon. Friend: such an interpretation is entirely wrong. Of course, there will be an opportunity to return to these points in detail in Committee.
  There can be no question of the Security Service acting in circumstances where the security of the nation as a whole is not under threat, nor could there be any circumstances in which the Security Service could act in a way that tended to further the interests of any political party. That is clearly and specifically set out in clause 2.
  Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I have so many points to refer to that I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
  I promised to reply to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about the powers of police officers and the special branch. Police officers act under the authority of their own legislation. The special branch is part of the police force, which is under the authority of the chief constable. Any complaints about the special branch go to the Police Complaints Authority.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the extremely important issue of accountability. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) will not display what he is holding in his hand.
  Mr. Mullin: I was just reading it, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Patten: In a Bill such as this, whose objectives must be clarity and certainty when dealing with the security of the nation, there is no place for proposals, however well intentioned, that could lead to confusion. In practice, the effective oversight of the Security Service is inseparable from overall responsibility for the Security Service. I urge the House not to accept, under the guise of what may seem to be a reasonable person's response, something that in practice turns out to be a fudge.
  We cannot safely divide up the responsibility for the Security Service. That is recognised by other English-speaking parliamentary systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) referred to New Zealand. Socialist New Zealand has chosen to go down a route that is similar to ours in many ways. New Zealand has a commissioner. It has also decided that there should not be parliamentary scrutiny.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's points about supervision displayed a very muddled—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we do not display placards in the Chamber.
  Mr. Mullin: It is not a placard. It is the front page of the Sunday Express. I was merely trying to remind the Minister of my intervention earlier in the hope that he would reply to it.
  Mr. Lawrence: I think that the hon. Gentleman was reading a blank page.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South is well known in the House for his frivolity and his lack of serious attention to these matters.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wanted general supervision. He completely failed to understand the workings of the tribunal and barely mentioned the important role of the commissioner. He did not realise that the generalised supervision for which he was apparently calling at the beginning of his speech could never deal with the individual misdemeanours of those in the service. The only people who would ever have such information available to them would be the management of the service, the director-general, the Home Secretary and of course the commissioner, who is an independent figure, a judge from the high judiciary at the right or left shoulder of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook began to talk about general supervision, I thought that he was suggesting a body such as that which had been described to the House earlier by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who is not his place—a general checking body. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then put before the House a model of that general supervision. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be going off to the Cabinet at 9.45 am on a Thursday and someone would come up to him with a warrant. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook went on to say that what he expected to be interposed between my right hon. Friend and his decision-making process was some sort of parliamentary body. [Interruption.] It will be in Hansard for all to see.
  If only the right hon. Gentleman could have seen the looks of amazement and then embarrassment on the faces of his colleagues. He had suggested a concept which would put parliamentary scrutiny between the bringing of a warrant and the decision by the Home Secretary of the day. No democracy in the western world operates parliamentary scrutiny over the operational decisions of the service which guards it. That was the precise remedy that the right hon. Gentleman put before the House. I dare say that he did not mean it.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North well illustrated the problem of parliamentary oversight. It was noted very carefully that he wanted to require my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to come to the House and answer allegations about the reasons for the service allegedly targeting particular individuals or organisations. What an absolute gift to any organisation which threatens our security to ask the Home Secretary through Parliament so that the Home Secretary will have to tell Parliament the exact facts. That would be a gift to anyone.
  I turn to the central question about warrants that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West so wanted me to answer. In his notable speech my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, from his considerable experience of the difficulties of the Select Committee in trying to examine the workings of special branch, encapsulated the problems that would face any parliamentary oversight should the House decide that there should be one.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I was replying to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I hope that he has the decency to recognise that.
  For the first time ever, Parliament will have the assurance that there is a proper statutory procedure for the examination of warrants and, for the first time ever, the commissioner, the independent judge, will make a report on such matters, subject to security exclusions, to which his report drew specific attention. That report will be published and laid before Parliament. These are important provisions, providing significant new safeguards. The House would be wise to welcome them.
  The warrant procedure is public. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked that it should he made public, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. That provision is in clause 3. The system will provide for considerable oversight of all the warrant activities involved in the Bill.
  Public confidence will be greatly improved and deepened by the Bill. It will be impossible to deal in depth with every point made by hon. Members. I hope that in the answers which I have given—I have tried to be as even-handed as I could be across the Floor of the House—I have demonstrated that I have listened with care. We shall continue to do so and to reflect on hon. Members' points during the Bill's progress. We believe that the Bill is a good answer to difficult questions about the role of the Security Service in our system. Of course they are difficult questions to answer. We have answered them by a short, comprehensible and clear Bill which is easily understandable. It apportions directly the fundamental responsibilities on matters of security and recognises this country's traditions.
  The Bill and the spirit with which we have brought if forward compare ill with the carefully measured attack by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on the record of the Security Service, which has helped this country so much. That statement will be in Hansard tomorrow. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sits giggling. In the Europeanwide fight against terrorism—for example, in the Trevi group—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary finds that our European partners recognise and appreciate the skill and professionalism of the Security Service. That is why they can operate with it. The right hon. Gentleman should not have attacked the Security Service. He will live to regret those words—[Horn. MEMBERS: "That is a threat."] The right hon. Gentleman should have listened carefully to the speech—
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister must think carefully about the worth which he used. They can be interpreted as a threat. He should be prepared to say that he did not mean that formulation of words in the sense in which he used it.
  Mr. Patten: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should have listened to the moving speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, one of the last Members who can speak without a hint of humbug about spilling blood to defend freedom. There was a time when the Labour party could, in the interests of national security, be counted upon to put the nation's interests beyond the internal problems of its party

  1179
  managers, following the fiasco across that party after the muddle last week over the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
  The Labour party condemns terrorism, but it does little to help. We have not a single constructive alternative to the policies which we have laid before the House in the last couple of weeks to deal with terrorism—powers to detain suspected terrorists for questioning, no; exclusion orders, no; restrictions on terrorists' access to the media, no; and now, putting the Security Service on a statutory footing, no. Whatever the reason, the Labour party shows by those attitudes that it has quit its role as the reasonable alternative party of government.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 105.

  Division No. 21]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Favell, Tony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Fenner, Dame peggy

  Alexander, Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Allason, Rupert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amess, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Amos, Alan

  Forman, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Ashby, David

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert

  French, Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Gardiner, George

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beggs, Roy

  Gill, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Benyon, W.

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grylls, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

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

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Burt, Alistair

  Harris, David

  Butler, Chris

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hill, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hind, Kenneth

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Holt, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cran, James

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

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Devlin, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Hunter, Andrew

  Durant, Tony

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Eggar, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jack, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Janman, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  1180

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Knowles, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Neubert, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waddington, Rt hon David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Page, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wheeler, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whitney, Ray

  Portillo, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilkinson, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Renton, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Doran, Frank

  Alton, David

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eastham, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Gould, Bryan

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Graham, Thomas

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Holland, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Crowther, Stan

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Darling, Alistair

  Leighton, Ron

  1181

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sillars, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKelvey, William

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Vaz, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Wall, Pat

  Meale, Alan

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Nellist, Dave

  Winnick, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Randall, Stuart

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redmond, Martin

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Security Service Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  Security Service Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Security Service Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act.[Mr. Maclean.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The money resolution should not go by without my making a few comments, as there are some issues to raise. The money resolution is broadly based. [Interruption.] In spite of Tory Members shouting for me to sit down, we should carry on with our investigation. Threats should not be uttered in Parliament. Free speech should be allowed.
  Clause 6 of the Bill deals with money. According to the explanation at the top of the Bill, the amount involved will be about £360,000. I shall ask the Minister a few questions, because the money resolution provides for any Act arising out of the Bill to be financed by Parliament. Naturally, one must look at all the consequences flowing from the legislation. It behoves us to undertake such scrutiny.
  First of all, there is the question of a commissioner, because he will undertake the task of reviewing the warrants. He will peer over the Minister's shoulder metaphorically, and possibly in some cases literally, to see whether the Minister is exercising the powers under this legislation correctly. Therefore, when he reviews the warrants that are being issued for burglaring and bugging—as Peter Wright explained in his much-read book—the commissioner will be undertaking an important task.
  Because we are authorising payment to the commissioner under clause 4(2), it is worth while studying the amount of money that the commissioner will receive. The Minister should tell us, because there is a line between a very good salary and what people in the street might think of as bribery to keep his mouth shut. I say to the Minister that if he raises his eyebrows and says, "Tut. tut, what a thing to suggest"—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I did not say that.
  Mr. Cryer: I could see something flashing across the hon. Gentleman's face, and I thought that that might be going through his mind.
  People on ordinary wages, supplementary benefit or other low incomes, when they hear about some of these salaries—£50,000, or £60,000 or whatever the range is, and it has not been mentioned so far—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Egg producers are going bust.
  Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend has said, egg producers are going bust.
  Mr. Skinner: In Buxton, Derbyshire.
  Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether £360,000 is enough, because the Government will spend £500,000 remedying the damage done by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in her attack on the poultry industry.

  1183
  However, I shall come back to the salary of the commissioner. What range will it be in, because we do not necessarily want someone who will be a pillar of the establishment? Indeed, I believe that we would want someone who is not. It does not reassure me when I read in clause 4(1):
  "The Prime Minister shall appoint a Commissioner for the purposes of this Act a person who holds or has held high judicial office within the meaning of the Appelate Jurisdiction Act 1876."
  It does not reassure me because those people come from a privileged educational position. The majority of judges were barristers—although there are some qualifications to that—and the education of barristers has been designed by the establishment to keep the sons and daughters of the working class out. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) laughs, but how does he suppose that the bricklayer's son or daughter can afford to take their dinners for a number of years before taking their Bar final examination? How can he or she afford the expensive monopolist charges for wig and gown? The realities of ordinary working-class life is that this money must be found. By and large, the people who get onto the judicial bench are not the sons and daughters of the working class. I ask the Minister to tell us first of all the salary range of the commissioner.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right that the people who get the jobs with the kinky clothes come from the belly of the establishment, just like those who finish up spying. Nearly every spy who has been caught in the past 30 to 40 years has come straight out of the belly of the establishment. That is important in relation to this Bill and the money involved in it. I must say that what is even worse is that 500 people have just been thrown out of work because of that chicken farm at Buxton going bust.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What has this to do with the money resolution?
  Mr. Skinner: Five hundred jobs have been lost and not one of those people who have lost his job will get the job to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has referred.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has a point, and it arises from the money resolution. By and large, people in the poultry industry are poorly paid and have not been well organised. They would wish to be satisfied that the commissioner will exercise proper scrutiny. When they see the sort of salary that I believe the Minister has in mind, they will wonder whether this is not just another job for a public schoolboy.
  Another area of expenditure covered by the money resolution is the tribunal which, under clause 5(1), will be established
  "for the purpose of investigating complaints about the Service in the manner specified in Schedule 1 to this Act."
  The expenses and salaries of the tribunal's members will be paid by the Home Secretary, with the consent of the Treasury, as he determines. What sort of salaries and expenses will they receive? The job is so important that we should not gauge it by the amount of money being paid. We must always ask whether the salary and expenses are
  1184
  so large that they would represent to the ordinary man and woman in the street not so much a salary as a way of keeping people's mouths shut.
  The Minister said that the Bill is designed to create confidence in the operation of the security services. If the salaries are as astronomic as they usually are for such jobs, many people will believe that the tribunal is not scrutinising the Security Service properly.
  It would be much more radical and interesting if the Government included on the tribunal people who are not barristers, advocates or solicitors of 10 years' standing. They should have an ordinary citizen or two on the tribunal instead of trawling the legal profession, as they always do to fill such positions.
  When dealing with investigations, the tribunal may have to undertake extensive investigations. Under clause 1(3),
  "it shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands."
  Such acts or intentions may arise from the French water companies wishing to buy the British water industry, which the Tories are putting on the market. If MI5 decided that the French water companies represented a threat as defined in clause 1(3) it could investigate the activities of any British citizen who was employed by a French company. If that citizen complained to the tribunal, it would have to investigate not only activities here but the link with the French water companies.
  The total cost of establishing and staffing the tribunal and assisting the commissioner is envisaged to be about £360,000 a year, with an additional public service manpower requirement of about 12 officers. The cost and manpower requirements, obviously, will depend on the volume and nature of the tribunal's work. Let me give the Minister a concrete example.
  The old firm is at it again. MI5 is leaking secrets to the Sunday Express. It did it when Chapman Pincher was the paper's defence correspondent and, with the authority of the Prime Minister, MI5 poured out secrets, so that Chapman Pincher—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see what that has to do with the money resolution.
  Mr. Cryer: I am merely pointing out, by way of example, that the Sunday Express appears to have a monopoly—perhaps it has been granted a royal warrant by MI5—to leak secrets, as it did for Chapman Pincher's book "Their Trade is Treachery". My comments relate to the money resolution. The tribunal will investigate complaints and the money resolution will provide the finance for that.
  I have here a photocopy of the Sunday Express of 14 February 1988. It contains a picture of John Diamond and somebody else. The picture could provide a perfectly legitimate basis for a complaint that MI5 had taken this picture and had leaked it to the Sunday Express for its use. The picture is of a citizen who has nothing to do with the claims of MI5. That is precisely what the Bill concerns. The citizen sees the picture—
  Mr. Roger King: The money resolution.
  Mr. Cryer: I am speaking about the money resolution.

  1185
  The photograph was published in the Sunday Express, SO that citizen would have the right to go to the tribunal. MI5 is up to that sort of dirty trick. It is precisely because of its dirty tricks that the Minister is promoting the Bill—and the Bill will not function without the money. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) does not understand such matters, although if he is here for another 25 years—which is unlikely—he might eventually grasp a few basic simplicities. My example illustrates the sort of complaint that the tribunal will investigate.
  Does the Minister agree that I have sketched such a complaint? It will be no good for the Minister to say that the Government have little idea because the matter is dealt with in the Bill. The Minister complained earlier that the Opposition have not been putting forward positive or constructive suggestions. I have given a positive example of the way in which such a complaint might arise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated his point well with one example. I hope that he will not give too many examples.
  Mr. Cryer: I know that my comments have been rather drawn out, but may I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have been subjected to continuous harassment from the hon. Members for Northfield and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and I know that you would want to draw their attention to the rules of order—and the Minister's attention as well. He has been making snide little comments all the time. I do not mind, but I am interested in the rules of good conduct in the House and I do not want to see the rules broken while you are in the Chair. I try to help you to bring a bit of order on these occasions. Unfortunately, in trying to help you, it sometimes reflects on me in carrying out my duty as a Member of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fair enough for the hon. Gentleman to illustrate and sharpen his point by one example, but it is not necessary for him to give too many examples to make his point.
  Mr. Cryer: I entirely agree. I am making the point that such an investigation would involve the Sunday Express and the reporter. The photograph was taken, I believe, in Vienna in Austria, so it might involve investigations in other countries where the complaint was based. Those investigations would be, potentially, expensive. So I hope that the Minister will assure us that the £360,000 will be sufficient. Indeed, will it be sufficient to prevent him having to return to Parliament, as did the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, with two further money resolutions.
  We need a response from the Minister which will enable us to assess the importance of the points mentioned in the explanatory and financial memorandum, remembering that such comments will aid the whole House when the Bill is considered in Committee. We have an opportunity on this resolution to have a mini-debate about money. The Minister now has sufficient time in which to give a reasoned response to the points that I have raised.
  I appreciate that, because the Bill represents a new venture for the Government, we cannot have concrete assurances about expenditure. For example, the complaints about which we are talking have not before had a legitimate channel through which to be raised. Having
  1186
  asked about the fees to be paid to the commissioner and members of the tribunal, I trust that the Minister will make at least an attempt to answer those questions.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am sorry that, even in debating the money resolution, the only hon. Gentleman to speak from the Labour Benches felt it necessary to attack the Security Service, as, alas, did many of his hon. Friends when we debated the Bill. Although sad, it shows their real attitude, including their attitude to the service.
  I shall certainly answer the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman, who is the money resolution specialist in the House this century, and probably the next century as well, judging from the way in which he talks. The money resolution makes provision for expenditure which would be incurred under the Bill. The undertakings embodied in clauses 1 and 2 will not lead to any increase in public service manpower. The Bill has the effect of providing statutory authority for the Security Service and its expenditure.
  The Bill will involve additional expenditure in only three areas, two of which were mentioned by the hon. Member whose constituency I have temporarily forgotten, since he rolls from one to another. I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). That is his present constituency; he moves around a great deal.
  Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to issue warrants authorising the taking of specified actions in respect of property, only where he is satisfied that this is necessary to obtain essential information which cannot be obtained by other means. The administration of procedures for applying, issuing, cancelling and renewing these warrants is a consequence of the legislation, and the additional costs have been included in the financial memorandum as part of the estimate of the total costs of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman who at present represents Bradford, South asked some leading questions about the commissioner. Clause 4 requires the Prime Minister to appoint a commissioner. The clause provides that the Secretary of State shall pay to him out of voted money such allowances as the Treasury determines.
  The Commissioner has to be a serving or a former judge. If a serving judge is appointed—I imagine that under most circumstances that that would be most likely the—commissioner will not receive any additional salary. There will be no additional public expenditure because that judge will already be being paid. The costs of the post would then be confined to the incidental expenses and adequate support. The estimated cost is within the figure quoted in the financial memorandum and judges' salaries are a matter of public knowledge, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  Thirdly, clause 5 and schedule 2 provide for the establishment of a tribunal and for the cost of that also to be met out of voted money. Those costs can be the remuneration and allowances of the tribunal members who will be drawn from the classes that the hon. Gentleman so contemptuously described, or other expenses which include the costs of office accommodation and support services.
  The hon. Gentleman fairly said that we could not calculate those costs precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a great deal will depend on the number of

  1187
  complaints received, which cannot be estimated at this stage with any accuracy. But our estimates have been made on the basis of providing the tribunal with three officers and allowing for accommodation and for paying the members on a daily rate. Those estimated costs are also incorporated in the costs quoted in the financial memorandum.
  Mr. Skinner: I want to ask the Minister about the application of the money resolution in respect of investigations into, for example, the case of Roberto Fiore, the Italian who has been here for seven years—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see what that has to do with the money resolution.
  Mr. Skinner: I shall tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That Italian is wanted by the Italian Government as a major suspect in the railway bombing which killed 85 people in Italy. Although Italy has been trying to extradite that man, who could be regarded as a spy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the motion before the House.
  Mr. Patten: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say, simply for the avoidance of doubt, that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is characteristically talking complete nonsense. The case—
  Mr. Skinner: It is in The Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Patten: Just because it is in The Daily Telegraph does not mean that it is true.
  Mr. Skinner: It is the Minister's paper.
  Mr. Patten: The issue to which the hon. Gentleman is referring—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now getting into a matter that I fear has nothing to do with the motion before the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Security Service Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act.

  Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

  Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill
    Clause 1

      ROYALTY EXEMPTION FOR PETROLEUM FROM CERTAIN SOUTHERN BASIN AND LANDWARD AREAS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      10.38 pm
      Mr. Frank Doran: We had a fairly lengthy debate on Second Reading on the general aspects of North sea oil and gas recovery, but one or two specific points remain open for question.
      First, will the Minister give us some idea of what possibilities he sees for the extension of the philosophy behind the Bill? We have seen the removal of the royalty payments in the northern sector of the North Sea in 1983 and now we see them being removed from the southern basin. But some fields are coming to the end of their useful life and there will be a growing number of such fields in the next few years. What proposals do the Government have for those older fields? We hope that his proposals will lead to improved investment in technology which would encourage an increase in the recovery rate from those fields.
      My next point was raised on Second Reading and it concerns the British Gas monopoly. Ministers referred us to the proposal within the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that 10 per cent. of the recovered gas should be sold to parties other than British Gas. However, we did not get a statement about the Government's position. Opposition Members are concerned that British Gas controls the rate of development because it is the monopoly purchaser. What proposals does the Minister have to open up the sale of gas and to encourage the development of the marginal fields that we discussed on Second Reading?
      Will the Minister comment on the impact of the electricity privatisation?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see how that can possibly arise under clause 1.
      Mr. Doran: I am talking about the monopoly purchasing power of British Gas. It is a matter for debate under the clause. I was about to ask the Minister whether he thinks that the privatisation of electricity and the opening up of what the Government claim to be new electricity suppliers will bring about any improvement. On Second Reading the Minister gave the example of the purchase by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board of gas from the Miller field for burning in the Peterhead power station.
      The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I am not following the clause. It is about royalty exemption for petroleum from certain southern basin and landward areas. It has nothing to do with electricity generation and gas supplies.
      Mr. Doran: I thought that I had made it clear that I was talking about the sale of gas. I was asking the Minister whether he thinks that there will be any improvement after privatisation and whether there will be encouragement for exploration in the southern basin.
      In Britain, gas and oil are publicly owned. The establishment and payment of royalties was an expression of that public ownership. Opposition Members regret the fact that the Government have taken what appears to be a blunderbuss approach and simply removed the royalties completely rather than taking a field-by-field approach. They have breached the principle of public ownership which royalties represent.
      The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that the mineral rights remain vested in the Crown, and that will remain the case. The philosophy about the longevity of the fields is not quite within the confines of clause 1. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have placed much emphasis on further research and development. Only yesterday in Edinburgh I launched a new institute which will have, among other things, to consider that aspect.
      I would expect the privatisation of electricity to help the southern basin in terms of further gas exploration and discoveries. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and as we discussed on Second Reading, the point of the Bill is to encourage further exploration and development. I am sure that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends think that that is the right way to proceed.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      EXTENSION OF ROYALTY EXEMPTION FOR PETROLEUM FROM CERTAIN NEW OFFSHORE FIELDS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Doran: I want to deal with the link between the licence conditions specified in clause 2 and health and safety. There is a power for the Minister to insist on the execution of works under the regulations referred to in the Bill and to revoke the licences of operators where there are breaches of safety. Safety was a major feature of our earlier discussions on the Bill. Will the Minister comment on his powers and tell us whether they have ever been used?
      Mr. Peter Morrision: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the licences are approved subject to certain conditions. He rightly highlights the safety conditions in terms of exploration and production. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I saw fit to look carefully
      1190
      at or withdraw a licence because the conditions were not being met, we would have no hesitation in so doing. I believe I am right in saying that so far no licence has been withdrawn, which is a good reflection on the industry.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      POWER TO AMEND DESIGNATION ORDER RELATING TO CONTINENTAL SHELF BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Doran: This clause establishes the treaty between our Government and that of the Irish Republic. It opens up the possibility of exploration of the north-west coast of Scotland and the south-west coasts of England and Wales. It would be useful to know what the Government's proposals in respect of licensing in this area are, and what prospects there are for development and industrial improvement in these parts of the country.
      Mr. Peter Morrison: The hon. Gentleman flatters me by suggesting that I can look into a crystal ball and see what the possibilities are. I wish I knew. The reason for this agreement, and for the clause that ensures that it will be put into practice, is that the areas concerned can be put up for licence. At some stage in the future it is possible that, given the development of technology in the much deeper waters, that this area by and large covers, it will be explored and that more production will ensue.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    AGRICULTURE
    That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1983), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November 1988 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2055), dated 24th November 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
    Question agreed to.

  Transport (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful for this opportunity to put to my hon. Friend the Minister a number of points about transport in Scotland.
  This debate comes at the end of a week in which this subject has been at the forefront of debate in the House. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Scotland made an excellent statement on public expenditure. Yesterday, the House gave a Second Reading to the Transport (Scotland) Bill, after a long debate that was fully answered by my hon. Friend the Minister. After these events, there is a great deal of interest in transport in Scotland. I want to ask my hon. Friend some detailed questions about Scotland in general and about issues of great importance to my constituents in Eastwood.
  I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's substantial extra provision for roads and transport—an increase of about £40 million on the previously announced plans for 1989–90. That enables the implementation of the manifesto commitment to upgrade the A74 to motorway status to begin.
  After the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend, I asked him about the Ayr road route—the dual carriageway extension from the M77 at Dumbreck, bypassing the built-up areas of the south side of Glasgow and Giffnock, Newton Mearns and Barrhead, to the present A77 at the Malletsheugh. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will welcome this chance to expand on what our right hon. and learned Friend said in answer to my question.
  The Ayr road route is crucial to the economic health and environmental health of the areas I mentioned, and to Ayrshire. It would help, if not resolve, the critical traffic situation in Eaglesham village, to which subject I will return later. It will mean that, for the first time, a good road link will exist between Prestwick airport and the central Scotland motorway system. That is why the then Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that it be given "a high priority". The Government's response was positive and clear. I quote the Government response dated 2 March 1983, paragraph 19:
  "As regards the A77, preparatory activity is already in hand with a view to starting work on the trunk road section"—
  that is, the section outside the Glasgow city boundary for which the Government are responsible—
  "in 1986–87. Strathclyde regional council have proposals in the TPP to being work on the proposed section within the city boundary in 1985–86, but with the main work starting in 1986–87. This is the earliest timetable currently considered feasible for the construction of the trunk road section, taking account of the preliminary survey and design work and the statutory procedures that have still to be undertaken. The Government will, however, take all necessary steps to adhere to this timetable."
  That was very clear and unequivocal:
  "The Government will, however, take all necessary steps to adhere to this timetable."
  That leaves no room for doubt, but the timetable has slipped considerably.
  I appreciate that perhaps this is because of delay resulting from objections and the complexity of statutory procedures. Nevertheless, I welcome Strathclyde regional
  1192
  council's strong support for the road, and disagree with the rather petty objections made by Glasgow district council. However, as I said on Tuesday, answers to parliamentary questions put by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) have revealed that the northern Ayrshire and Renfrewshire sections of the A77 are much more dangerous than the A74, which is being upgraded to motorway status—welcome though that decision is.
  My hon. Friend's predecessor told me in an answer to a parliamentary question on 18 February 1987 that the Ayr road route would take 6 million vehicles a year in 1991. On 8 April 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me:
  "The start of the Ayr road route is held back by procedural and not financial constraints."
  I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will confirm that that is so, and indicate the up-to-date position in respect of the public inquiry and his right hon. and learned Friend's consideration of it. On the assumption that the scheme is approved, can he give the timetable for both the start and the completion of the construction period?
  Earlier, I mentioned the village of Eaglesham in my constituency. It is a village that my hon. Friend knows well, as it is the one in which Rudolf Hess landed—as described in my hon. Friend's first-class book. It is a charming conservation village with much new housing. It is represented on Eastwood district council by Councillor Basil Baird, on whose family farm Hess landed.
  The village has seen a sharp increase in traffic, and of goods vehicle traffic in particular. That has created serious problems. I quote from one of the many letters I have received from constituents:
  "Over the past few years there has been a dramatic increase in the amount and nature of the traffic using the road. I have recently been involved in a traffic count over a twelve hour period, and I am appalled by the result: 988 heavy goods vehicles, 1,163 lorries, and 8,578 cars. This means one heavy goods vehicle trundles, or more accurately, hurtles, past my front door every 45 seconds".
  It is a narrow road.
  "There has also been a marked increase in speed and a dramatic rise in the number of accidents. I must also point out the damage to the environment, with the steep gradient and constant gear changes there is an unacceptable level of lead in the atmosphere."
  That is typical of the huge volume of complaints.
  I welcome the interim measures that have been taken by Strathclyde regional council—the roundabout at one end and the lights halfway down Montgomery street in the middle of the village. Councillors and Eaglesham community council have made unremitting efforts, and it was owing to pressure from the previous regional councillor Robbie Robertson that the Eaglesham bypass was put into Strathclyde region's plans. It has, however, been delayed. In his letter of 5 December, my hon. Friend confirmed to me that it was now scheduled for the spring of 1993. Given the extra resources for road investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this week, I should like to know whether there is any possibility of a general speeding up of the Strathclyde programme, which would help Eaglesham.
  I appreciate that decisions on such matters will reflect the priorities of Strathclyde regional council, but it is not quite as simple as that. Tonight's Adjournment debate was originally to have been about the causeway to Vatersay, but the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) withdrew his application, for the good reason that my

  1193
  right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced a special capital allocation to enable the causeway to go ahead. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman: I think that this is the first recorded example of the threat of an Adjournment debate achieving its objective.
  I do not necessarily threaten my hon. Friend the Minister with constant Adjournment debates on this issue, but this is an important constituency matter and I know that he or his officials will be having technical discussions with Strathclyde regional council. Obviously, the Scottish Development Department is involved in such discussions when determining Strathclyde's total allocation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will view the problem sympathetically.
  On a more general note, my hon. Friend knows of my interest in bus privatisation and the need for proper competition between Strathclyde Buses and the present Clydeside group, which will be linked after privatisation, and also my interest in McGills of Barrhead, an excellent and long-established independent bus operator. These are vital matters for my constituents. We shall, however, have plenty of time to discuss buses in the future. I should like tonight to ask my hon. Friend a number of questions about CalMac.
  I congratulate the Government on their proposals, which represent a proper balance and reflect the different circumstances in different areas of the islands. Yesterday, my hon. Friend answered very fully the general debate on Second Reading of the Scottish Transport Bill. There was then an unscheduled—for many of us—addendum, then a closure motion and then a debate on the money resolution, when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) took the whole of the allotted 45 minutes. It was the first time that I had seen a Labour Front Bencher filibuster to keep Opposition Back Benchers out. Be that as it may, my hon. Friend did not have a chance to put on record his response to the money resolution, and it is that on which I wish to speak tonight. I wish particularly to refer to the investment record of CalMac since 1979.
  It is important that the House should hear my hon. Friend's account of the position, and I hope that he will be able to tell us about CalMac's general record and prospects. Perhaps he will take the opportunity, if the information is available to him, to answer some specific questions, which would be of value to everyone with an interest in the future of the services.
  Let me ask my hon. Friend four such questions. First, how much grant have the Government provided for ships and piers since they came into office? Secondly, and related to that, how much has CalMac invested since then? Thirdly, how many new ships will be built under this programme? Fourthly, all hon. Members with an interest in the subject recognise the importance of the roll-on roll-off facilities for the islands. Can my hon. Friend say whether those facilities have been extended?
  I have two general questions for my hon. Friend. First, what has been the general reaction to the Government's proposals for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne since my right hon. and learned Friend's statement to the House? Secondly, now that the Transport (Scotland) Bill has been given a Second Reading, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make a statement about the Government's policy on ferry services?
  I could refer to many other aspects of transport policy: to the rail network and air transport. My hon. Friend
  1194
  knows my views about continental air flights from Glasgow airport. However, I want my hon. Friend to have time fully to reply to the questions I have asked. In conclusion, therefore, I congratulate him on the Second Reading of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and on his contribution to a public expenditure statement earlier this week, which is good news for transport in Scotland.
  11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) serves both his constituents and the House well by referring to such important and relevant matters. It is typical of my hon. Friend's extremely dedicated, hard-working and vigorous approach as the Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire. It is a particular pleasure for me to reply to this debate. Many years ago, my father was the Member of Parliament for my hon. Friend's constituents.
  My hon. Friend referred to the proposed Ayr road route and the possible timetable for its completion. The proposed Ayr road route is a joint Scottish Development Department-Strathclyde regional council project to link the M77 spur at Dumbreck to the existing A77 at Malletsheugh. The effect of this will be to provide a dual carriageway between the M8 on the south of the Kingston bridge and Malletsheugh, which lies to the south of Newton Mearns. The section between Dumbreck and the former Glasgow city boundary, approximately 7 kin, will be a local road for which Strathclyde regional council will be responsible and the section between the city boundary and Malletsheugh, approximately 4 km, will be a trunk road for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be responsible. The trunk section is effectively a bypass of Newton Mearns. The total cost of the joint project will be at least £55 million, of which the trunk section will be at least £15 million.
  A large number of objections were made to the Strathclyde region section of the road, and some 32 objections to the trunk section remained outstanding at the beginning of this year. Accordingly, it was decided to hold a public local inquiry. The inquiry, which was held in Glasgow, began in March 1988 and ended some 10 weeks later in May.
  The reporter to the inquiry completed part I of his report, his findings of fact, only recently and it was distributed to the parties to the inquiry on 9 December There now follows a period for adjustment of the findings of fact. Then the next step is for the reporter to compile part II of his report—his conclusions and recommendations—for submission to the Secretary of State. Normally, part II is produced much more quickly than part I, and I would expect my right hon. and learned Friend to issue his decision on whether the new road should go ahead in the first half of 1989.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the need to bypass Eaglesham. Strathclyde regional council's latest transport policies and programme submission includes a scheme to bypass Eaglesham. The council acknowledges that the road through the village is carrying increasing volumes of traffic between Ayrshire and East Kilbride, including a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. The environmental problems resulting from the increased use of the

  1195
  road are also recognised. The promotion of the bypass scheme is intended to remove all the heavy through traffic from the village and to reduce accidents.
  The council's financial plans, submitted to the Department in November 1988, show that the scheme is scheduled for a March 1993 start, as are two similar by-pass schemes for Strathaven and Darvel. But the timing of specific projects is a matter for Strathclyde regional council. The council, within its overall allocation for capital expenditure on roads and transport, is free to determine which projects it will undertake and their relative priority in the light of local circumstances.
  The Government also make substantial provision for local roads and transport. Strathclyde regional council, as the largest authority, is a major benefactor of the capital allocations given to regional and islands authorities. The council's allocation is £57 million in the current year—a substantial sum.
  As for trunk roads, the Government already have a substantial programme from which Strathclyde benefits. The forward trunk road programme for Scotland contains a good number of proposed schemes in Strathclyde. There are 26 major schemes with a total estimated value of at least £270 million. In addition, major works on upgrading the A74 to motorway should be starting in due course. In the Renfrew district area there are four major trunk schemes—the A77 Ayr road route, the A77 Fenwick-to-B764-junction scheme, the scheme from there to Malletsheugh and the M8 St. James interchange. The first three of the schemes mentioned will complete a dual carriageway from Glasgow to Ayr. The trunk element of the Ayr road route along with the other three Renfrew district area schemes represent an estimated Government expenditure of at least £50 million.
  I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about investment in Caledonian MacBrayne, and I shall describe the background briefly. CalMac operates passenger, vehicle and freight shipping services to the islands off the west coast of Scotland and in the Clyde estuary. There are 26 scheduled services in addition to which the company provides seasonal cruising, livestock runs and charter/ contract services. The company-owned fleet consists of 28 vessels—12 major vehicle ferries, 14 small vehicle ferries and two passenger-only vessels. The newest major vessel, the MV Isle of Mull, was launched at Port Glasgow on 7 December 1987 and came into service on the Oban-Mull route this year. A further major ferry is on order from Appledore-Ferguson Ltd. Shipbuilders and will enter service on the Oban-Barra/Lochboisdale route in place of two aging vessels in 1989.
  Other major new vessels which have come into service since 1979 are the Isle of Arran in 1984, which, as its name suggests, serves Arran, and the Hebrides Isles in 1985, serving the triangular route between Uig in Skye, Tarbert in Harris and Lochmaddy in North Uist. There has also been investment in the smaller vessels which are so important in the short crossings to the smaller islands.
  The total of new investment by CalMac in new ships since 1979 is £22 million. Those years have seen a welcome improvement in the standard of ships provided, which is much appreciated by the islanders, as well as by the tourists attracted to visit the islands, in no small part by the modern car ferries provided.
  1196
  There has also been substantial investment in piers by Caledonian MacBrayne, which has been directly responsible for investment of £6 million in new piers. Of course, it does not own all the piers to which it operates. The Government have also provided substantial grant assistance to local authorities and independent harbour trusts to improve their piers. A special feature, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been the spread of roll-on roll-off facilities cutting out the need for the time-consuming use of side lifts to unload the increasing number of cars carried on CalMac's ships. That is very welcome.
  Link spans for roll-on roll-off purposes have been built at Uig, Tarbert, Lochmaddy, Lochboisdale and Colonsay. Work is proceeding on a linkspan at Castlebay in Barra. A total of £22 million has been paid out in pier grants throughout Scotland since 1979.
  It may help if I describe the basis on which help is given to Caledonian MacBrayne by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is empowered to give financial assistance to operators of sea transport to the Highlands and Islands by the provisions of the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services Act 1960. In accordance with that Act, the Secretary of State entered into an undertaking with CalMac and the STG in 1975. The undertaking allows grants to be made to CalMac to maintain and improve sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands.
  Those grants take the form of a revenue support grant which covers the annual deficit which the Secretary of State estimates that the company is likely to incur in providing approved services—23 in all in 1988—during a specified period, in practice the company's trading year between 1 January and 31 December. That grant is at present running at about £6 million a year. Capital grants not exceeding 75 per cent. of the actual capital expenditure incurred by the company are provided for pier works. No capital grant assistance is paid towards the cost of ship purchases.
  CalMac's financial target is to break even after receipt of the revenue support grant which I have mentioned. Since 1986, a clawback system to recover any surplus of revenue support grant over actual requirements has been in force. The sytem allows the company to retain up to a maximum of £300,000 of any surplus as an incentive to efficiency. CalMac's performance has shown a healthy upturn in recent years and subsidy requirement has fallen in cash and real terms. That is partly due to increased carrying for all types of traffic and, consequently, increased revenue. Although credit must be given to the company for much improved marketing techniques, the other important factor is lower fuel costs. Fares have been held for several years at or below the general level of inflation.
  Last night, we discussed the arrangements proposed under the Transport (Scotland) Bill for Caledonian MacBrayne. The principal objective is to maintain at least the present standard of service. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the proposals.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members cannot discuss legislation in an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will not try to do a rerun of yesterday's debate, because that would be out of order.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall restrict my comments to the investment in CalMac.

  1197
  For the most part, CalMac services do not make a profit, and a subsidy of about £6 million a year is required. We have always been clear that Caledonian MacBrayne was not a straightforward case for privatisation. The first priority in any arrangements is to guarantee the lifeline services which it provides. It is for that reason that, having studied the issues carefully, we decided that, on the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne should be transferred to the Secretary of State.
  We intend to appoint a new board for the company, which will contain persons with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. I feel that that is vital to ensure the responsiveness of the company to its customers.
  As a matter of priority, we would look to the new board to examine the possibilities of relocating the headquarters nearer the centre of the area which it serves. Oban seems likely to prove a suitable place for that purpose. We shall ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes. I consider it anomalous that CalMac is operating a subsidised service on a similar route to an unsubsidised private operation.
  In the longer term, we will expect the board to examine carefully all existing practices in the company's operation with a view to providing more efficient and cost-effective ways of providing at least the present standard of service. No options for the longer term will be excluded, subject to
  1198
  the overriding proviso that we must ensure at least the present quality of service to the Islands. I consider that, with its own board and independence, CalMac will be well placed to continue and improve on the present level of services.
  The views of the ferry users are important, and we intend to continue to consult them. At present, the main means of consultation for ferry users to make their views known are through shipping services advisory committees and the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. They are doing a good job and that will continue.
  In its 1987 manifesto, the Conservative party made it clear that it would continue the substantially increased financial support for the provision and upgrading of ferries and terminals which are vital to the islands. In Scotland, in the period from 1979 to date, the Government have provided grant for ferry pierworks and vessels in Scotland totalling £23·33 million. In the same period, we have also subsidised ferry travel by a total of £78·7 million. For Caledonian MacBrayne, £22 million has been invested in new vessels and £6 million in new piers over the same period. These are substantial sums and demonstrate the importance which the Government attach to investment in shipping services, particularly in Caledonian MacBrayne.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Expenditure (EC)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total budget expenditure for the EEC, European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom for 1988; and what was the total budget in its first full year of operation.

  Mr. Brooke
  In the ECSC's first year of activity (1952) its budget was 4·6 mecu. In 1968 that part of its budget covering non-operating (that is, largely administrative) expenditure was merged with the EC/Euratom budget, leaving the balance of its budget, covering operating expenditure (mainly aid and restructuring), to stand as a separate budget. In 1968 the ECSC budget, as redefined, amounted to 21·2 mecu; in 1988 it amounted to 562 mecu (£390·4 million1).

  The budget for the EEC and Euratom in their first year of activity (1958) amounted to 11 mecu. In 1968 the EC and Euratom budget was merged with the non-operating part of the ECSC budget to form the so-called general budget. In that year the general budget amounted to 1,561·3 mecu; in 1988 it amounted to 43,820·4 mecu (£30,431·1 million1).

  1 Converted at the Commission's current budget exchange rate of £1 = 1·439421 ecu.

  Developing Countries
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which recent International Monetary Fund study he was referring in his speech of 6 December in the Grand Committee Room which showed that, among developing countries, liberalising changes in trade outnumbered restrictive changes by nearly two to one in 1987.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 14 December 1988] : I was referring to table 1 of the 1988 IMF annual report on exchange arrangements and exchange restrictions, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which World Bank figures he was referring in his speech of 6 December in the Grand Committee Room which suggest that protection by industrialised countries costs the developing countries more than twice the amount of official aid that they receive.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 14 December 1988] : The reference was to estimates contained in a paper by World Bank staff "Industrial policies of Industrial Countries: Impact on Developing Countries" which was discussed at the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in September. The World Bank intend to publish the paper in due course.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will lay a statutory instrument before the House under section 119 of the Building Societies Act 1986 defining deferred shares and the terms on which they are issued.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]I expect to lay an order under Section 119(1) of the Building Societies Act 1986, together with a consequential order under section 45(5), early in the new year.

  Tax Allowances
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the rate of single person's and married man's income tax allowances has increased between April 1979 and April 1988.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]Between 1979–80 and 1988–89, the single person's income tax allowance has increased by 22 per cent. in real terms and the married man's allowance has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  PLO (Meeting)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting between the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) and the representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) gave to the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on 12 December at column 398.

  Berlin Security Service
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the British authorities in Berlin are responsible for the actions of the Berlin security service, Berliner Verfassungsschutz.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Under the declaration of Berlin of 5 May 1955, the Allied Kommandatura has"the right to take…such measures as may be required to…maintain the status and security of Berlin".

  However, the Berlin authorities have responsibility for the day-to-day running of the city, including the operation of the security services.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  In-plant Training
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of the in-plant training scheme.

  Mr. Newton
  The in-plant training scheme, which operates under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 but is co-funded by the European Social Fund
  645
  and administered under ESF criteria, is to be closed to new applications with immediate effect. The scheme was designed to help companies meet training costs associated with new investment projects in the assisted areas which met the requirements for regional selective assistance. Because of substantial changes which the ESF has made to its criteria, the scheme is in practice no longer achieving this objective.

  Under the revised rules, trainees must be aged under 25 at the start of the training programme, be trained in the use of new technology and receive a minimum of 200 hours actual training. These requirements have proved difficult for applicants to satisfy and the three operating Departments have made no offers of assistance since the revised criteria were introduced in January 1986. As a result, the Government have decided that there is nothing to be gained by continuing with the scheme.

  Closure of the scheme will have no effect on the aount of assistance available to projects which meet the criteria for RSA.

  Japan and Taiwan
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list in the Official Report the financial value of United Kingdom exports to Japan and Japanese imports to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report the financial value of United Kingdom exports to Taiwan and Taiwanese imports to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is given in the following table:

  United Kingdom exports and imports for Japan and Taiwan 1985–87

  Value in £ millions

  Exports

  Imports

  Japan

  1985

  1,012·3

  4,115·5

  1986

  1,193·7

  4,936·9

  1987

  1,495·1

  5,463·1

  Taiwan

  1985

  164·8

  582·6

  1986

  192·5

  705·6

  1987

  292·3

  1,006·9

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics

  Note:

  (1) Figures for 1987 are provisional.

  (2) Exports valued fob, imports cif.

  Estate Agents
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that estate agents disclose major defects in properties before placing them on the market.

  Mr. Forth
  I have no immediate plans to do so. It is for the purchaser of a property to ensure that he or she has adequate information on the condition of the property before entering into a commitment to purchase.

  RENAVAL Programme
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's646
  plans for the implementation of the European Economic Community's RENAVAL programme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The RENAVAL programme, financed by the European regional development fund, is for areas adversely affected by the restructuring of the shipbuilding and ship repair industries.

  I am consulting my right hon. Friends about applications which may be submitted to the European Commission for RENAVAL programmes for British areas.

  Most shipbuilding areas already receive a full range of benefits from the fund.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responsibility his Department has for ensuring that foodstuffs are safe for human consumption and carry no risk of food poisoning; in what way this responsibility is carried out; how many and what type of staff are required; what is the annual cost to his Department; and what has been the change in the number of staff and the annual cost to his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department of Trade and Industry has no direct responsibility for food safety for human consumption, although the laboratory of the Government chemist plays an important role in conducting analysis and advising the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence on contamination by micro-organisms, heavy metals, pesticides and veterinary residues; the cost of that work rests with those Departments.

  The DTI and MAFF have launched a collaborative link research programme (£7 million from Government; £7 million from industry) to improve control of food processing, which will, lead to improvements in food quality and safety.

  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library the details of the bilateral textile agreement between the Economic Community and the Republic of China as it relates to knitted outerwear under the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 14 December 1988]Details of the new textiles agreement between the European Community and the People's Republic of China will be placed in the Library when they are made public.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to be able to publish the details of the bilateral agreement on textiles between the European Community and the Republic of China under the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 14 December 1988]The details of the new bilateral textiles agreement between the European Community and the People's Republic of China are still being finalised. They will be made public as soon as possible.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report the new

  647
  inner limits of knitted outwear agreed between the European Community and the Republic of China to the multi-fibre arrangement bilateral agreement expressed as a percentage of the inner limits contained in the previous agreement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 14 December 1988]: I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many small businesses have started up and how many have closed over the past five years in Derbyshire; and how many jobs have been gained and lost in connection with these.

  Mr. John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the five years to the end of 1986, the latest year for which the data is available, there have been an estimated 12,237 registrations for VAT in Derbyshire, and an estimated 10,682 deregistrations. The overwhelming majority of these related to small firms. It is not possible to say how many jobs have been gained and lost as a result.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  City Technology College, Nottingham
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his visit to the Nottingham city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend visited the Djanogly city technology college in Nottingham on Monday 5 December to lay the foundation stone of the building. The development of the college is proceeding well. The principal, deputy principal and four faculty heads have been appointed, the building programme is on schedule and offer letters have been sent to the pupils for the first year's intake next September.

  CERN
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about future United Kingdom membership of CERN.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have now considered the action taken by the CERN council in implementing the reforms recommended by the CERN review committee under the chairmanship of Professor Abragam and concluded that sufficient progress has been made for the United Kingdom to indicate that it will remain a member of the organisation.

  There are, however, a number of outstanding matters stemming from the review committee report which the United Kingdom will be expecting to see pursued over the next year. Accordingly, at the CERN council meeting today, the United Kingdom delegate made a statement emphasising the United Kingdom's wish to see CERN's scientific excellence continued and indicating the areas where progress on reducing the cost burden on member states has still to be made. I have arranged for copies of the statement to be placed in the Library.

  The Government's decision will be reflected in the forthcoming allocation of the science budget, which I shall make when I have considered the advice of the ABRC.

  F E Colleges (Opting-out)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to allow colleges of further education to opt out of local education authority control; and if he is considering legislation to extend the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1988 to include colleges of further education.

  Mr. Jackson
  Sections 139 to 155 of the Education Reform Act 1988 provide for the reform of governing bodies of LEA-maintained further education colleges and for substantial delegation to these bodies of responsibility for finance, staff and the pattern of courses. LEAs are free to go beyond this and grant their colleges corporate status, and my right hon. Friend would welcome such a development. To go further and enable colleges of further education to become fully independent of LEA control would require new legislation. My right hon. Friend has no plans for this.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table updating for the years 1987–88 to 1990–91 that section of table 1.2 in the "Cabinet Office Annual Review of Government Research and Development Expenditure" that relates to the University Grants Committee and the research councils in the light of announcements made subsequent to publication of the 1988 review.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced on 1 November increases of £306 million for the science budget over the next three years and of the over £100 million for teaching and research at the universities for the same period.

  Most, but not necessarily all, of the additional money for research will be for research as defined in the annual review. Neither research councils nor the UGC will be in a position to provide the necessary figures for updating table 1.2 until well into the new year.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much of the additional money awarded to the research councils for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 over and above that given in the table 1.2 of the "Cabinet Office Annual Review of Government Research and Development" has been earmarked for(a) AIDS research and(b)the Antarctic Survey.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) on 10 November at columns 253 and 254, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 8 November at columns 134 and 135.

  My right hon. Friend will be considering shortly the case for an increase in the Medical Research Council's strategic programme for AIDS research on the basis of advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Highbury Quadrant School
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to seek to improve the performance of redeployed teachers from Highbury Quadrant; and if he will make a statement.
  649
  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend to take direct action to improve the performance of individual teachers. That is the responsibility of the employer, in this case the Inner London Education Authority.

  Business and Technician Education Council
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many learning establishments in England teach Business and Technician Education Council courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information from the Business and Technician Education Council is that at 13 December 1988,601 public and private sector institutions are running courses leading to BTEC qualifications. They are in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A separate figure for England is not readily available. However, the numbers in Wales and Northern Ireland will be relatively small.

  Universities (Funding)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his policy on making new financial arrangements between his Department and the Universities Funding Council; and what requirements he intends to include in new financial arrangements concerning the monitoring by the Universities Funding Council of individual universities and the transmission of any such monitoring information to his Department;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning draft terms of the new financial arrangements between(a)his Department and the Universities Funding Council and(b) the Universities Funding Council and individual universities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his policy on making arrangements for annual block grants to be made by his Department to the new Universities Funding Council; and what account will be taken of information made available by the Universities Funding Council concerning the monitoring by the Universities Funding Council of individual universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is preparing a memorandum which will govern its financial relations with the Universities Funding Council under the Education Reform Act 1988. Discussions are being held with the council and with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on its proposed provisions. Some of those provisions will need to be reflected in the memoranda which the council will draw up with individual institutions. As in the Act, there is a balance to be struck in these matters between institutional autonomy and proper accountability to Parliament for substantial public funds. The council's general responsibilities mean that it needs to have a complete picture of the institutions it funds. While it consequently needs power to require information about the total funding of universities, the Act is clear that such information should not be used to affect funding decisions adversely. In the same way, the Government have made it clear that decisions on funding levels, reached in the light of the council's advice, will not penalise institutions' success in raising private income.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the operation of the consultation process leading to the formation of city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We shall consider carefully any plans put to us by sponsors which meet the broad objectives of the CTC programme. While there is no general statutory requirement, sponsors will be expected and encouraged to consult the local community, local employers and the local education authority about these plans.

  Where local education authorities are considering the possibility of closing an existing maintained school to allow for the establishment of a CTC they will need to publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act, 1980. We have made clear the importance we attach to appropriate consultations taking place on such proposals with all interested parties. Detailed guidance is given in the Department's Circular 3/87. We set out our policy on deciding section 12 proposals which had as an objective the establishment of a CTC in my right hon. Friend's statement of 28 July at column 402.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage difference between the local education authority providing nursery education for the highest proportion of children and that providing the lowest.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In January 1988 the percentage point difference between the local education authority where the least proportion of children under five were attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools and the local education authority where the highest proportion were attending such schools and classes was 68.

  Marine Research
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the future funding of marine research.

  Mr. Jackson
  On the funding of marine research carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council, my right hon. Friend is considering the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and hopes to announce his allocations for 1989–90 shortly. As to the wider context, the co-ordinating committee on marine science and technology will report in due course on a national strategic framework for Government-funded marine science.

  Agricultural and Food Research
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the Government's response to the interim report on agricultural and food research from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have written to the Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Sub-Committee I; the following is the text of my letter:
  651

  Lord Butterworth CBE

  Chairman

  Sub-Committee I

  House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology

  The House of Lords

  Dear Lord Butterworth,

  House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Sub-Committee I (Agricultural and Food Research)

  1. I am writing to you as Chairman of Sub-Committee I to give the Government's observations on the Sub-Committee's Interim Report which was published on 27 October last.

  2. The Government appreciates the thorough and far-reaching enquiry which the Sub-Committee is making into this important subject; and the reasons that led you to make an interim report. The Government welcomes this report as timely further evidence of the remarkable and exciting developments in the biological sciences; of the growing realisation of their pervasive and complex nature; of their enormous potential for good; and of the way these changes rightly bring under review established perspectives and practices.

  3. The Government has noted carefully the Sub-Committee's opinion; and in particular their recommendations concerning the remit of SERC, the merger of AFRC and NERC, and the related recommendation on the future development of the Biotechnology Advisory Group. It will be giving these and related matters careful consideration over the coming months. As the Sub-Committee knows, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC) is currently reviewing the Research Council's responsibilities for biological sciences. The Government believes that the Sub-Commitee's interim report should be helpful to the Board conducting this exercise. The Government would wish to have the results of that review and the Board's advice on it before reaching final conclusions on whether changes are needed in the structure and responsibilities of the Research Councils and, if so, what changes would be appropriate. I hope to have that advice during the early months of next year.

  4. In these circumstances, the Government does not intend to respond further at this time to the Sub-Committee's interim report. We look forward with interest to your final report, to which we will respond in the normal way.

  5. In accordance with past practice I shall be making this letter available to both Houses, and publishing it.

  Yours sincerely,

  Kenneth Baker.

  The ESG Programme in England in 1989–90

  Activities with New Starts in 1989–90

  New Expenditure in 1989–90 (cash) £ million

  Number of LEAs with new starts

  Total of new starts committed2£ million

  NEW ACTIVITIES

  Local Management

  1. Local Management of Schools1

  25·0

  97

  25·0

  2. Planning and Delegation Schemes for FE1

  1·2

  96

  1·2

  3. Training for School Governors1

  4·9

  97

  4·9

  4. Training for FE College Governors1

  0·2

  11

  0·2

  National Curriculum Related

  5. LEA Inspection1

  1·9

  96

  1·9

  6. National Curriculum1

  9·5

  97

  9·5

  7. English in the Curriculum1

  5·1

  97

  5·1

  Social Responsibility and Inner Cities

  8. Youth Leaders for the Inner Cities

  2·4

  21

  2·4

  9. Establishment of Adult Literacy Centres

  3·0

  54

  3·0

  10. Improvement and expansion of Educational Guidance for Adults

  1·5

  36

  1·5

  EXTENSIONS

  Financial Delegation-Related

  11. Management Information Systems in FE1

  3·5

  28

  6·9

  National Curriculum-Related

  12. IT in Schools—expansion of hardware scheme1

  9·5

  97

  20·7

  Education Support Grants
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on expenditure to be supported by education support grants in 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Department has written to all local education authorities in England to inform them of the level of expenditure which I have approved for the purpose of education support grants in 1989–90.

  Expenditure under the programme in 1989–90 wilt total £125·5m. Some £49.5m of this will be for the continuing support of projects begun in earlier years, and £76m is for new and extended activities. The table sets out the programme and shows the number of LEAs receiving allocations for support of new expenditure.

  I am pleased that all local education authorities will be participating in the 1989–90 ESG programme, which is the largest to date. I made clear during the passage of the Education Reform Act that I would use my grant programmes to help with the implementation of the reforms. The approvals I have just announced represent substantial assistance for LEAs with the introduction of local management of schools and colleges and the national curriculum. I am also particularly glad that we have been able to provide support for centres to help adults with literacy and numeracy problems, and that ESGs will be used to allow almost 200 young people to train as youth workers in their own communities.

  I have approved £35m of new expenditure in the programme for activities relating to local management, including £25m specifically for its introduction into schools and £5m for governor training. £29m of new expenditure will go towards helping authorities with the various aspects of the introduction of the national curriculum, including £5m for English, £9.5m for the core subjects and technology, and a further £9.5m for the purchase of equipment for information technology in schools. Taking new and committed expenditure together there will be support for over £90m of spending in 1989–90 on activities relevant to the ERA reforms.
  653

  New Expenditure in 1989–90 (cash) £million

  Number of LEAs with new starts

  Total of new starts committed2 £million

  13. Science and Technology in Primary Schools1

  2·8

  41

  9·7

  Social Responsibility and Inner Cities

  14. Open Learning

  1·4

  48

  2·7

  15. Action to Combat Misuse of Drugs

  2·1

  94

  2·3

  Other

  16. Computer Aided Engineering

  2·0

  21

  2·0

  Activities Continuing without New Starts

  17. Maths in Schools1

  —

  —

  8·4

  18. Improving the Quality of Education in Rural Primary Schools

  —

  —

  1·5

  19. Improving the Quality of Education in Urban Primary Schools

  —

  —

  0·4

  20. Education for a Multi-Ethnic Society

  —

  —

  2·7

  21. PICKUP

  —

  —

  0·2

  22. IT in Non-Advanced FE

  —

  —

  4·9

  23. Education for the Unemployed

  —

  —

  0·3

  24. Support for Parents of Children Under 5 with Severe Learning Difficulties

  —

  —

  1·9

  25. Pilot projects to develop the use of the spoken word

  —

  —

  0·3

  26. Promotion of social responsibility in young people

  —

  —

  1·4

  27. Pilot project to develop Records of Achievement

  —

  —

  1·3

  28. Diversification of First Foreign Language in Schools

  —

  —

  0·5

  29. Learning by Achievement for 14-21 year olds

  —

  —

  2·2

  30. School teacher and lecturer appraisal

  —

  —

  0·5

  Totals

  76·0

  97

  125·5

  1Activities of relevance to the implementation of the ERA reforms.

  2Grant will be paid at 50 per cent. on the second tranche of expenditure and at 70 per cent. on commitments arising from 1988–89.

  Freedom of Speech
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how the Government propose to review section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 in the light of its first year of operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have written to the chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and of the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and to the hon. secretary of the Standing Conference of Principals to suggest that as a first step their organisations should examine the working of the section by reference to their members' codes of practice and the way in which they have been applied and should recommend to the Government any desirable changes.

  The text of my letter to the chairman of the CVCP is as follows.

  Professor Sir Mark Richmond FRS

  Chairman

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals

  29 Tavistock Square

  LONDON WC1H 9EZ

  Dear Mark

  14 December 1988

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH
  It is just over a year since Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 came into force. During that period there seems to have been a welcome decrease in the disruption which gave rise to the original legislation. But there have still been some bad incidents, which raise questions about the effectiveness of present arrangements. I am sure therefore that you will agree that we ought now to review the working of Section 43.
  2. The Government has indicated its intention to undertake such a review. However, we lack systematic
  654
  information on the arrangements made by institutions. In particular, we have only seen copies of a few institutions' Codes of Practice.
  3. I should therefore like to suggest that as a first step the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals, to whom I am writing in similar terms) might agree:

  (i) to examine the working of Section 43 by reference, among other things, to your members' Codes of Practice and the way in which they have been applied;

  (ii) to obtain from your members any additional information needed to illuminate a number of key issues described below, and

  (iii) to recommend to the Government any desirable changes.

  4. The key issues in (ii) are those which seem to us, as a result of our monitoring of events during the last year, pose particular problems for institutions. They do not necessarily reflect on the legislation but may raise questions as to how institutions have sought to put it into effect. They are:—

  (a) the practice of directly limiting the number of meetings which may be held, or requiring organisers to meet security costs which may be disproportionate to their resources. (One suggestion to consider is that the student body, represented by the Student Union, should bear the scrutiny costs as a means of engaging them in the maintenance of free speech and good order);

  (b) requirements for excessive notice of meetings. Notice is needed to make security arrangements but should not be such as to prevent topical meetings being arranged to a relatively short timescale. (Long periods of notice also enable those determined to cause disruption to marshall their forces);

  (c) the need to ensure that speakers are not intimidated by the number of actions of protestors. This may require institutions to take greater responsibility for the conduct of meetings and the selection of venues;

  (d) the responsibility of institutions to avoid appearing to acquiesce in "no platform" policies. We are aware of one institution which refused to consider, and referred back to its Student Union, a complaint from a student group that it had been denied rights by the Union;

  655

  (e) the need to take firm disciplinary measures against students who breach Codes of Practice and to have in place effective arrangements for identifying offenders.

  5. If the task outlined above could be completed by the end of April 1989, the Government would then review its own position and discuss with the CVCP, CDP and SCOP changes for adoption, if possible, from the beginning of the 1989/90 academic year.
  6. If you wish to discuss the contents of the letter with me or with officials, we are available to do so. But work needs to be put in hand quickly. I hope therefore that you can signify by Friday 6 January 1989 your agreement to proceed.

  ROBERT JACKSON

  Salmonella
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider the decision to terminate an annual grant of £113,000 to Dr. Geoff Mead at the Institute of Food Research in Bristol to fund work on the control of salmonella.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have been asked to reply.

  The decision to terminate the work on the manipulation of microbial flora of the gut of young chickens was taken following an extensive review of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commissioned research in microbiology. It was decided that the work was ready for industry to develop.

  A small number of companies have participated in collaborative trials with the institute of food research, Bristol and it is to be hoped that they will be interested in taking this work further. This will not constitute a reduction in Government support on microbiological research, such as in salmonella. The funding is to be diverted to other important parts of our extensive programme of research into microbiological food safety. A working party is currently considering what further research is needed on salmonella and I will consider this advice carefully.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Council (Terrorism)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the procedures adopted by the European Council to implement its agreement on co-operation between member states to combat terrorism.

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty's Government have for many years attached particular importance to international co-operation in this field. I therefore welcome particularly this, and any other, agreement with our partners, which will give fresh impetus to practical and effective co-operation in defeating the menace of terrorism.

  Ministers (Exchange of Letters)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer of 29 November, Official Report, column 178, she will list those occasions since 1979 on which the text of letters to departing Cabinet Ministers(a) have and (b) have not been published.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 15 November 1988 at column 543.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Member's Correspondence
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the text of her letter to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 29 September about Airey Neave and related matters.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my usual practice to publish exchanges of this kind.

  Bed and Breakfast Hostels
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit families who are currently in bed and breakfast hostel accommodation; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no such plans at present.

  Junior Ministers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, if junior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government require authorisation from the senior Minister in the Departments concerned before making public announcements outside the House on policies; and if she will publish the recommended procedures involved.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers speak on Government policy as appropriate.

  Train Travel
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when she last travelled by train on official business in the United Kingdom;
  657
  (2) if she will list the occasions on which she has travelled by train on official business since June 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  In February 1987.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

  Grande Carajas Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider the United Kingdom's contribution to the Grande Carajas programme in the Brazilian Amazonian forest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Her Majesty's Government have not contributed directly to any project in the Greater Carajas programme area of Brazil. In 1982, the World bank and the European Coal and Steel Community approved loans to finance part of the costs of the Carajas iron ore project. Disbursement against these loans is complete. The World bank is also financing an energy options study, which is in progress, in the light of proposed pig-iron smelter production in the region.

TRANSPORT

  M66/A664 Interchange
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the draft order, Connecting Slip Roads, M66/A664 (Manchester) Interchange.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Next spring.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the intergovernmental commission expects to receive from Eurotunnel its proposals for safety arrangements, including operating rules and emergency procedures, for the Channel tunnel; and what arrangements are being made for these proposals to receive public scrutiny.

  Mr. Portillo
  Eurotunnel has already submitted to the intergovernmental commission a certain number of its design proposals for the Channel tunnel, mostly in preliminary form, and intends to complete submission of them in final form by the end of next year, but it has yet to suggest a date for the submission of its operating rules and emergency procedures. The intergovernmental commission, in considering Eurotunnel's proposals, has the assistance of the Channel tunnel safety authority, and the commission and the authority can look for assistance to other bodies, but the concession does not provide and arrangements have not been made for the proposals to receive public scrutiny.

  M1
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider remarking the lanes on the northbound carriageway of the MI motorway north of the junction with the M25 so that the offside lane hard shoulder currently not in use can be utilised as an additional lane but in such a way as to create an additional crawler lane on the nearside similar to the way the lanes have been remarked on the southbound carriageway of the M1 north of junction 4.
  658
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Crawler lanes are justified and effective only where there is a significant uphill gradient to the brow of a hill. These conditions do not apply to the northbound carriageway of the M1 north of the junction with the M25.

  Any use of the off-side hard shoulder at this location as a running lane would involve many vehicles in repeated changes of lane in a short distance. The adverse effects on safety and the free flow of traffic, particularly at junction 8, would outweigh any benefit from the availability of a short stretch of additional carriageway.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the road surface markings and signs relating thereto have recently been altered on the southbound carriageway of the M1 north of junction 4 on the stretch of four-lane motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Signs and markings were altered to signal the use of the nearside lane for slow-moving vehicles.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of procuring and erecting the new road signs informing motorists of the short stretch of four lanes on the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway north of junction 4.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  £4,250.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of the road surface remarking recently carried out on the southbound carriageway of the M1 north of junction 4 on the stretch
  of four-lane motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  £10,500.

  Brixham Coastguard
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Brixham coastguard.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no plans to alter the present status of Brixham coastguard maritime rescue sub-centre.

  Research Expenditure
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the annual expenditure on research into(a)public transport and planning and(b)prevention and control of marine pollution in 1978–79, 1987–88, with forecasts and plans for1988—89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  Expenditure by the Department on research into public transport and transport planning (excluding technology and investment analysis) has been as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1978–79

  1·4

  1987–88

  1·8

  Forecast expenditure for 1988–89 is £18 million. Planned expenditure for 1989–90 is £1·1 million. Specific plans for this sector have not yet been made for subsequent years but continuation of expenditure at about the 1989–90 level is likely.
  659
  For research into the prevention and control of marine pollution, no figures are readily available for 1978–79. For the other years my Department's forecast or planned expenditure is:

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·892

  1988–89

  1·052

  1989–90

  0·989

  1990–91

  0·970

  Other Departments also finance research in this area, including the Departments of the Environment, of Education and Science (NERC), and of Energy; the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

  Buses (Deregulation)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, as a result of research commissioned or conducted by his Department on bus deregulation, he can provide details of (a)the average annual percentage increase in fares since deregulation and(b) the number of routes which have ceased to be served by buses.

  Mr. Portillo
  Between 1985–86 (the last full year prior to bus deregulation) and 1987–88, local bus fares in Great Britain rose at an annual rate of just under 8 per cent., as fares in metropolitan areas rose from previous very low levels. Data on route mileage are not compiled, but bus mileage had increased sharply, the bulk of it being operated commercially. Local authorities have the power to purchase additional non-commercial services in case of social need.

  Railway Accident (Clapham Junction)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the name of the inspector to carry out the investigation into the serious railway accident near Clapham Junction on Monday 12 December.

  Mr. Channon
  I am glad to tell the House that Mr. Anthony Hidden QC has accepted my invitation to hold an inquiry into this accident. I shall be discussing with Mr. Hidden what expert assessors should be appointed to assist him. He expects to hold an initial hearing as early as possible in January.

  The investigation will be carried out under section 7 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. That will enable the investigation to inquire into the cause of the accident and all other relevant matters, and to make recommendations, so that appropriate lessons can be learned for the future.

  Railway Accident Statistics

  19881

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  1981

  *2

  1980

  1979

  Collisions

  Involving Passenger Trains

  18

  20

  19

  17

  17

  17

  15

  18

  13

  18

  Involving Other Trains

  21

  27

  20

  16

  31

  35

  37

  10

  *

  6

  8

  Between Trains & Buffers

  38

  33

  36

  35

  35

  36

  28

  39

  32

  34

  Derailments

  Passenger Trains

  28

  20

  34

  30

  33

  25

  23

  35

  *

  28

  30

  Freight Trains

  77

  172

  158

  199

  187

  195

  150

  113

  *

  110

  153

  Passenger Casualties

  Train Accidents Killed

  0

  3

  8

  0

  18

  2

  0

  4

  0

  8

  Driver Testing
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the annual report and accounts of the Driver Testing and Training Organisation for the last financial year are yet available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Copies of the Driver Testing and Training Organisation's annual report for 1987–88 have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  We welcome the progress noted in the report towards tight management control of unit costs and reduced waiting times for L-tests. The organisation has been set targets to achieve further improvements during the current year and to provide a better all-round service for its 2 million customers.

  To help shorten waiting times, Saturday morning tests were introduced in September for a trial period at selected centres. Seven of the 11 regional driver test booking centres are now fully computerised. Once the new systems have settled down, this should mean a better service for customers, particularly when it comes to telephone inquiries.

  As from 24 October, the eight-test day recommended in the 1985 review of occupational stress among driving examiners has come into effect. This major improvement in working conditions was made possible by co-operation between management and staff representatives to identify time-saving compensating changes in working arrangements.

  Too many candidates take the test too soon. One in two fail. Driving should be learned not just to pass the test, but as an essential skill for life.

  Good training and an effective driver testing system are key elements in helping to equip new drivers on Britain's busy roads to cope with the conditions they will find there. It continues to be the overriding objective of the Driver Testing and Training Organisation to contribute cost-effectively to their reduction in road casualties.

  Railway Accidents
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the key statistics for railway accidents over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Channon
  The statistics asked for are available in the chief inspecting officer of railways' annual reports, available in the Library, but for convenience are set out below. The casualties from the Clapham accident have not been included because the final figures are not yet available.
  661

  19881

  1987

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  1981

  *2

  1980

  1979

  Major Injuries

  3

  13

  44

  31

  28

  9

  3

  12

  *

  27

  18

  Movement Accidents

  Killed

  34

  36

  23

  31

  21

  25

  18

  31

  25

  42

  Major Injuries

  79

  80

  70

  42

  52

  46

  42

  54

  *

  67

  79

  Non-movement Accidents

  Killed

  0

  29

  1

  2

  0

  2

  2

  4

  1

  2

  Major Injuries

  105

  84

  55

  51

  35

  31

  48

  41

  *

  72

  60

  1 The 1988 statistics do not include the Clapham Junction accident and must be regarded as provisional.

  2 The Accident Reporting Order was changed at the beginning of 1981 and the figures on either side of the asterisk are not strictly comparable.

  Notes:

  Passenger Casualties

  Train Accident—

  Injuries to passengers caused by a collision or derailment of a passenger train.

  Movement Accident—

  Injuries to passengers not caused by a train accident but arising out of the movement of a train ie falling, boarding or alighting from a moving train, or being struck by a train or door.

  Non-movement Accident—

  Injuries to passengers not associated with train working. Most are slips, falls or trips on the same level or on stairs or escalators at stations. The casualties of the fire at Kings Cross are included in this category.

  Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Transport and Road Research Laboratory has completed tests on 4 x 4 multi-purpose vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The tests have now been completed. We shall be making the full results available tomorrow. We shall have detailed discussions with manufacturers and other interested parties, including the Consumers Association and motorists' organisations.

  The TRRL tests are part of our continuing examination of this complex issue. The results will be placed in the Library shortly. We are continuing our investigation of other aspects, notably analysis of accident data both in the United Kingdom and abroad, and sharing our experience with that of other countries.

  We have embarked on international discussions with a view to developing appropriate international vehicle safety standards.

  Multi-purpose Vehicles
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars and related multi-purpose passenger vehicles were involved in 1987 in injury accidents in which a vehicle rolled over.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1987, 8,338 cars, including multi-purpose passenger vehicles, were involved in injury accidents which included roll-over.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the practice of the British Transport police in prosecuting(a) children,(b) young persons,(c) adults and (d) hunts who trespass on or cause damage to British Rail property.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer, 14 December 1988] : The hon. Member should aproach the British Transport police for this information.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation requiring the British Transport police to take legal action against members and officials of hunts who may endanger lives by trespassing on railway lines.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer, 14 December 1988]Decisions on prosecutions are matters for the police and the prosecuting authorities.

  Ardlough
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there was a public health risk or any ecological damage caused by the sinking of the vessel Ardlough; and whether hazardous substances, including low-level radioactive materials, which were unaccounted for have since been recovered.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public health risk was small and no ecological damage has been caused by the sinking of the 'Ardlough'. None of the hazardous materials unaccounted for has since been recovered. I am advised that the cargo which has not been recovered including the radioactive material, does not pose a threat of pollution sufficient to justify further action.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Attorney-General when was the last prosecution order under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929.

  The Attorney-General
  The last prosecution conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 was in 1980.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General when a prosecution was last taken against a doctor for aborting a child under section 1(1)(b) of the Abortion Act 1967.

  The Attorney-General
  Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 does not create any offence and accordingly no prosecution can be taken under its terms. The last prosecution conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for an offence under the law relating to abortion was in 1972. It resulted in a conviction.

  Magistracy and Judiciary (Ethnic Community)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of the ethnic community are members of the magistracy and judiciary.

  The Attorney-General
  No records are kept of the ethnic origin of members of the judiciary or of magistrates. However, a survey conducted of the magistracy at the end
  663
  of 1986 showed that the percentage of justices from ethnic minorities in relation to the total number of justices appointed in the Lord Chancellor's area was 1·92 per cent. In 1985 4·07 per cent. of new justices appointed were from ethnic minorities, and the corresponding figure for 1986 was 4·57 per cent. Informal indications are that the percentage will be slightly higher for 1987 and 1988.

  Property Sales
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to seek to bring the law of sale of property in England in line with Scots law to avoid gazumping.

  The Attorney-General
  None. Such legislation is unnecessary because the differences between England and Scotland in the way in which property is usually sold are differences of practice, not of law; and the procedural delays which permit gazumping in England are best dealt with by changes in practice.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General how many items of correspondence the Lord Chancellor has received from hon. Members about the work of the Land Registry since 1 July.

  The Attorney-General
  73.

  Mr. Tony Brooks
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he is yet in a position to make a statement on Mr. Tony Brooks in relation to alleged illegal acts referred to on 14 November,Official Report, column 739.

  The Attorney-General
  The Solicitor-General wrote to the hon. Member for Workington on 18 November in the following terms:"Pursuant to my answer to your oral question on 14 November, I have caused inquiries to be made into your intimation of possible allegations in the Panorama programme broadcast on 13 October, or in David Leigh's book on the Wilson plot that Mr. Tony Brooks was involved in a plot to destabilise the Government of Lord Wilson, or committed illegal acts.
  There is in neither the programme, nor the book, any evidence, or indeed any allegation of any criminal activity by

  Number of Beds (As at 31 December)

  District Health Authority

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Clwyd

  491

  584

  677

  758

  840

  1,170

  East Dyfed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  146

  195

  Gwent

  71

  71

  71

  292

  421

  719

  Gwynedd

  149

  149

  158

  202

  326

  405

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  8

  8

  8

  Powys

  —

  28

  42

  87

  195

  247

  South Glamorgan

  129

  140

  161

  203

  304

  381

  West Glamorgan

  144

  196

  224

  351

  547

  832

  Elderly People Health Care
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list by district health authorities(a) the number of people between 65 and 75 years of age who have been identified as needing or having (i) hip replacements, (ii) cataracts, (iii) chest complaints, (iv) heart disease, (v) strokes, (vi) Parkinson's disease, (vii) Alzheimer's disease
  664
  Mr. Brooks. I note particularly that Mr. Leigh in his book (at page 245) claims that, when Mr. Wright approached Mr. Brooks with the proposition for taking action relating to Lord Wilson, then the Prime Minister, Mr. Brooks responded that the proposition was improper. I would remind you of the Prime Minister's statement on 6 May 1987 in which she told the House that an investigation carried out by the Director General of the Security Service had found no evidence of any plot against Lord Wilson or his Government. There will be no criminal proceedings."

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out(a) the connections with (i) Leyton and (ii) Waltham Forest, (b) race, colour or ethnic origin, (c) business or public service background and (d) qualifications of each member of (1) the North East London area advisory committee and (2) the Waltham Forest division sub-committee on the appointment of justices of the peace.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have decided that the names of members of advisory committees on the appointment of justices of the peace are to be disclosed and that this is to apply to all advisory committees no later than 1992. The north-east London advisory committee has already disclosed its names and these have been given to the hon. Member. It would not be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to disclose other information about individual members. In any event, the committee is in the process of reconstitution.

WALES

  Nursing Homes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of places in(a) private and (b) voluntary nursing homes in each district health authority in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Comparable information is available only for the years 1982 to 1987. It is not possible to identify separately voluntary and private nursing homes.

  and (viii) osteo-rheumatoid arthritis and (b) the number of people over 75 years of age who have been identified as needing or having the above.

  Mr. Grist
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. The number of discharges (including deaths) from NHS hospitals in Wales in 1987 by district health authority (DHA) of residence and by each diagnosis is as follows:—
  665

  Number of discharges (including deaths) from National Health Service Hospitals in Wales in 1987 by district health authority area of residence and age (years)

  Diagnosis

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Pembroke-shire

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Other/unknown

  Wales Total

  (a)Age 65–74 years

  A.

  252

  128

  32

  165

  131

  420

  22

  150

  166

  10

  1,476

  B.

  598

  277

  114

  617

  378

  811

  94

  419

  380

  147

  3,835

  C.

  414

  278

  108

  385

  314

  748

  84

  373

  404

  71

  3,179

  D.

  40

  22

  4

  29

  58

  33

  9

  40

  33

  4

  272

  E.

  71

  65

  9

  37

  25

  135

  8

  70

  75

  4

  499

  F.

  8

  —

  —

  8

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  4

  25

  G.

  335

  165

  103

  317

  247

  569

  84

  283

  393

  58

  2,464

  H.

  195

  89

  63

  202

  150

  440

  59

  206

  171

  35

  1,610

  I.i.

  20

  27

  13

  10

  7

  12

  10

  4

  19

  3

  125

  I.ii.

  50

  53

  37

  41

  26

  82

  12

  59

  39

  5

  404

  I.iii.

  69

  49

  34

  58

  41

  147

  31

  94

  69

  17

  609

  I.iv.

  110

  47

  15

  183

  90

  260

  23

  185

  152

  13

  1,078

  I.v.

  408

  197

  73

  246

  245

  756

  78

  275

  226

  43

  2,547

  J.

  127

  97

  36

  89

  77

  108

  17

  120

  68

  13

  752

  (b)Age 75 years and over

  A.

  536

  219

  47

  234

  272

  530

  45

  196

  265

  18

  2,362

  B.

  576

  253

  101

  464

  476

  642

  102

  487

  370

  77

  3,548

  C.

  668

  359

  90

  527

  458

  825

  159

  667

  586

  69

  4,408

  D.

  135

  42

  4

  54

  109

  92

  18

  94

  85

  9

  642

  E.

  37

  23

  4

  28

  34

  58

  19

  31

  44

  2

  280

  F.

  5

  —

  —

  21

  11

  1

  —

  8

  2

  5

  53

  G.

  665

  330

  195

  494

  547

  691

  166

  525

  527

  75

  4,215

  H.

  420

  191

  103

  341

  373

  561

  113

  420

  290

  47

  2,859

  I.i.

  86

  60

  25

  12

  10

  8

  8

  7

  24

  8

  248

  I.ii.

  21

  8

  13

  14

  7

  25

  1

  17

  9

  2

  117

  I.iii.

  303

  171

  77

  175

  114

  350

  91

  305

  246

  16

  1,848

  I.iv.

  108

  52

  15

  114

  114

  150

  48

  116

  111

  14

  842

  I.v.

  588

  240

  88

  346

  436

  772

  123

  477

  318

  35

  3,423

  J.

  144

  99

  33

  93

  84

  114

  18

  103

  96

  17

  801

  Diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision) (Code)

  A. Cataracts (366).

  B. Ischaemic heart disease (410–414).

  C. Other heart disease (393–398, 401–405, 415, 416, 420–429).

  D. Parkinson's Disease (332).

  E. Rheumatoid Arthritis (7140).

  F. Alzheimers Disease (3310).

  G. Cerebrovascular disease (430–438).

  H. of which cerebrovascular accident 4369).

  Chest Complaints:

  I.i. acute respiratory infection (460–466).

  I.ii. other diseases of upper respiratory tract 470–478).

  I.iii. pneumonia and influenza (480–487).

  I.v. bronchitis and emphysema (490–493).

  I.v. other diseases of respiratory system (494–519).

  J. Hip replacement (OPCS operation code 810, 811).

  Sewerage
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the Welsh Water Authority sewage treatment works that failed to meet their discharge contents in 1987; and on what count they failed.

  Name of works

  Determined failing

  Suspended solids

  Bio-chemical oxygen demand

  Ammonia

  Other metals

  Abbeydore

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Acton Green

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Betws yn Rhos

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Boncath

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Bonvilston West

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Brithdir

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Broadstone Catbrook (Llandogo)

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Bronwydd

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Bryncrug

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Burry Port

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Burton

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Caernarvon

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Carew

  —

  *

  —

  —

  666
  Mr. Grist
  The information for 108 works is given in the following table. The remainder of the authority's 810 sewage treatment works met their consent conditions.
  667

  Name of works

  Determined failing

  Suspended solids

  Bio-chemical oxygen demand

  Ammonia

  Other metals

  Carway

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Chester

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Chirk

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Chirk Bank

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Christchurch

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Cilycwm

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Cradoc

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Cross Inn & Nebo

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Cwmffrwd

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Darowen

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Denbigh

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Devils Bridge

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Dihewyd

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Dolgellau

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Draethen

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Drope (Westbury Homes)

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Drury

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Eardisley

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Five Fords

  *

  *

  *

  —

  Flint

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Froncysyllte

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Garway Fairview

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Glynceiriog

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Gorsgoch

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Gresford

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Henllan

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Hereford Rotherwas

  —

  *

  —

  *

  Hope

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Kenderchurch

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Kidwelly

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Kilgetty East

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Lampeter

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Little Dewchurch

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llanbedr

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  *

  Llanbister

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Llandecwyn

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Llandewi Rhydderch

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Llanelli

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llanfaes

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llanfair Clydogau

  *

  *

  *

  —

  Llanfrothen

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llangarron-Herbert Hill

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Llangefni

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Llangndeyrn

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Llaniestyn

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Llantilio Crosenny

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Llanwarne-Monkton Place

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Llanybyther

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Maes-y-Groes

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Maesteg

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Marlas

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Miskin

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Mold Filter Works

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Mold activated sludge works

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Nantglyn

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Narberth East

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Newbridge-on-Wye

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Newchapel

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Newland

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Northop

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Norton

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Pandy

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Pencombe

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Penley

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Permorfa

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Pennard

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Penybont

  *

  *

  *

  —

  Ponthir

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pontrilas

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Presteigne

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Queensferry

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Raglan

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Rhandirmwyn

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Rhydpandy

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Rockfield

  *

  *

  —

  —

  668 669

  Name of works

  Determined failing

  Suspended solids

  Bio-chemical oxygen demand

  Ammonia

  Other metals

  Rosemarket

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Ross New (Lower Cleeve)

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Sarnau

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Sesswick

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Shobden

  *

  —

  —

  —

  St. Briavels

  *

  —

  —

  —

  St. Owens Cross

  *

  *

  —

  —

  St. Weonards

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Stanford Bishop

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Staunton-on-Wye

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Stoke Edith

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Talgarreg

  —

  *

  —

  —

  Talley

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Talybont (Price Bros)

  *

  *

  *

  —

  Tyddyn Hywel

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Walford (Coughton Place)

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Weston-U-Penyard

  *

  *

  —

  —

  Weycock Cross

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Wilton

  *

  —

  —

  —

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide details of any projections for the employment potential of forestry in rural areas in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  By the turn of the century, forestry and the wood-processing industries could be providing directly some 9,000 jobs in Wales, most of them in rural areas.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Offices
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members are sharing offices with other hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Walsh) on 14 December at column 578.

  Visitors' Guide
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the visitors' guide to the Galleries will be published in Italian and Dutch.

  Mr. Wakeham
  There are no plans to do so at present. However, the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee, which has initial responsibility for deciding in which languages the visitors' guide to the Galleries is produced, would be willing to consider any requests for additions to the range of languages available.

EMPLOYMENT

  YTS
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on his Department's programme to promote racial equality in its YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency within my Department keeps under review the series of measures it has adopted to 670
  ensure that young people from ethnic minorities enjoy full equality of opportunity as regards YTS. I attach particular importance to the agency's attempts to ensure that any obstacles to ethnic minorities joining schemes in the employer-led sector are identified and overcome with the assistance of all parties involved. The Commission for Racial Equality has endorsed the equal opportunities code of practice for YTS.

  Trainees (Injuries)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each year the number of trainees on MSC/Training Commission/Training Agency programmes who have received payments under the analogous industrial injuries scheme which his Department oversees; and what is the average payment made to each trainee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of adult and youth trainees eligible to receive benefits from the Training Agency's analogous industrial injuries scheme and the annual amounts paid since April 1983 is shown in the table. Comprehensive information is not available before 1983. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the average payment made because part of the annual amounts shown relate to trainees injured in an earlier year.

  Period

  Number of trainees who received benefits

  Total amount paid

  April 1983—March 1984

  945

  £263,799

  April 1984—March 1985

  779

  £363,497

  April 1985—March 1986

  782

  £480,434

  April 1986—March 1987

  850

  £601,339

  April 1987—March 1988

  1,057

  —607,837

  Business Registrations
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish for 1987 business registrations and deregistrations by region as laid in table 12.7 of "Regional Trends 1988".

  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested is not yet available.

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect he estimates his recent proposals for training, contained in "Employment for the 1990's" (Cm. 540) will have on voluntary and conservation groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The arrangements in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990's" (Cm. 540) will help to improve the delivery and focus of training at local level. Voluntary and conservation groups will be welcome to continue their support and commitment through training to helping unemployed people back into jobs.

  Trade union Ballots
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has published orders containing the qualifications of independent scrutineers of certain trade union ballots and elections and consequential changes to the trade union ballot funding scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The Trade Union Ballots and Elections (Independent Scrutineer Qualifications) Order 1988 has been published today. It specifies the conditions that a person must meet to be eligible for appontment as a scrutineer of certain ballots and elections which, under section 15 of the Employment Act 1988, will be subject to independent scrutiny from 1 February 1989. The order also specifies the following three bodies as being eligible for appointment as scrutineers:

  The Electorial Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland Ltd.

  The Industrial Society

  Unity Security Balloting Services Ltd.

  The Funds for Trade Union Ballots (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1988 have also been published today. These regulations amend the scheme under which trade unions may reclaim certain costs associated with secret postal ballots to reflect the new statutory requirement for independent scrutiny of certain ballots and elections which comes into force on 1 February 1989.

  Youth Training Board
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to announce the creation of a successor body to the Youth Training Board.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The Youth Training Board was dissolved when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took back the powers of the Training Commission into the Department of Employment. I cannot at the moment announce the creation of a successor body.

SCOTLAND

  Health Board Chairmen
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses in appointing health board chairmen.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend appoints the person who in his view is best fitted for the job of leading the health board. This requires commitment of time and energy and qualities of leadership, drive and sound judgment.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures for the last five years of the number of people who have applied for licences to run residential homes, broken down by health board area in which the homes are situated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The responsibility for registration of residential care homes lies with local authorities. Information about the number of applications for registration is not available centrally.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made for the good management of land sold by the Forestry Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the good management of land sold by the Forestry Commission rests with the purchasers.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of any projections for the employment potential of forestry in rural areas of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By the turn of the century, forestry and the wood-processing industries could be providing directly some 17,000 jobs in Scotland, most of them in rural areas.

  Sand Eels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to reduce the catch of 'O' and 'I' group fish in the Shetland sand eel fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Shetland fishermen have already taken voluntary measures to reduce catches of the youngest sand eels. We are currently considering whether additional management measures are required to protect the stocks.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the maximum sustainable annual yield for the Shetland sand eel fishery; whether he intends to set a total allowable catch for this fishery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The sand eel is a short-lived species, and recruitment to the stocks varies widely from year to year. In the circumstances, our scientists consider that it is difficult to estimate the maximum sustainable yield or to advise on an appropriate total allowable catch for the Shetland sand eel stock. Other conservation measures may be a more appropriate way of managing the fishery.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce a close season for sand eel fishing in Scottish waters to cover the period July to October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no plans to introduce a general close season for sand eel fishing in Scottish
  673
  waters. If further management measures appear to be needed around Shetland, a close season is one of the options which will be considered.

  Knitwear and Textiles
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing for each year since 1979, in index form with 1979 =100 the value in real terms of knitwear and textiles output in Scotland.

  Mr. Ian Lang
  The information requested is in the table. The hosiery and knitted goods industry is part of the wider textiles industry.

  Textiles

  Hosiery and knitted goods

  1979

  100

  100

  1980

  91

  103

  1981

  86

  106

  1982

  78

  97

  1983

  78

  93

  1984

  85

  108

  1985

  93

  122

  1986

  87

  116

  1987

  90

  120

  Source: Index of Industrial Production and Construction for Scotland.

  Health Spending
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department has issued to health boards on the need for increased spending on services for the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped in line with the Scottish Office publication "Health Spending in Scotland", and the Sharpen report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have endorsed the high priority accorded by the Sharpen report to the provision of community care services for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Decisions on spending on local services for particular groups are for individual health boards from the substantially increased resources made available to the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department has issued to health boards with regard to remedying the problems of community care, in cases where the transition from institutions to the community is costing more than anticipated.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. I do not accept that any deficiencies in the provision of community care arise from inadequate funding of the relevant authorities. Gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland is expected to reach £2,754 million in 1989–90. After allowing for inflation, this amounts to an increase in real terms of 34 per cent. since 1979–80. The Government's planning figure for current expenditure on social work services in 1989–90 is £445·4 million, an increase of 38 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. We have made it clear to the relevant authorities that within these substantially increased resources a high priority should be given to the provision of community care services for vulnerable groups.

  NHS Buildings (Sale)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the methods of monitoring the use of the proceeds from the sales of National Health Service buildings used for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill, and how his Department ensures that these proceeds are put back into those services rather than the regional budget.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The proceeds of sales of surplus Health Service property are now used for further investment in the Health Service by the health board in whose area the property lies. The use which is to be made of the proceeds of sales of a particular category of property is not generally specified but health boards know that they should give a high priority to the care of mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients. Capital expenditure on these categories of patient has been almost £20 million per annum in recent years. That sum far exceeds the proceeds of sales of surplus mental hospitals and associated land.

  Loch Sunart
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on pollution of Loch Sunart caused by the burial of diseased farmed fish close to the shore of the loch; and if he intends to take any action against any person responsible for such pollution.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Highland river purification board, as the authority responsible for the control of water pollution, is investigating a pollution incident at Loch Sunart. I am advised that the board's initial findings are that no serious pollution of the waters has taken place. The river purification board will determine what further action to take in the light of its inquiries.

  Agriculture Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the number of farmworkers whose employment will be affected by participation by their employers or others in the set-aside scheme; and if he will take any action either to compensate those workers or to provide additional employment in the areas concerned.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The possible effect of set-aside on farm and rural employment is one of the aspects of the scheme we shall be evaluating in its first years. Initial indications, on the basis of the average area of land proposed for set-aside by those who have applied this year (36 hectares) in comparison with the average holding size involved (140 hectares), are that the number of workers affected should be very small. There is no provision for special compensation. The Government already provide substantial assistance, through various programmes and agencies, aimed at improving employment opportunities in rural areas.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the work of the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards since its launch in July 1987.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has recently received from the chairman of Food From Britain, Mr. Walter Goldsmith, the "Review of the Activities of the Board of United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards for the period October 1987 to October 1988", a copy of which I am placing in the Library of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. McLouglin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Brussels which commenced on 12 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I attended the Agriculture Council which commenced on Monday, 12 December. Decisions were reached on a number of issues. The most important was a decision, subject to consulting the European Parliament, on the long running and difficult negotiations to define the production and minimum strength rules for spirit drinks. The outcome was particularly satisfactory for the United Kingdom, in that it fully safeguarded our major interest in Scotch whisky, gin and vodka.

  Although the meeting continued late on Monday and Tuesday, and overnight on Wednesday, it was not possible to reach agreement on a large number of other issues on the agenda. The Council was consequently adjourned to Monday 19 December when a further attempt will be made to reach conclusions on all the outstanding issues.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representatives of the National Farmers' Union and the Farmers' Union of Wales attended the briefing meeting in London on Friday 9 December to discuss the continuing effects of Chernobyl.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Three.

  Edenbridge House, Carlisle (Meeting)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers and landowners attended the meeting at Edenbridge house, Carlisle on 23 November to discuss the aerial survey of post-Chernobyl radioactivity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Six.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place a transcript in the Library of the meeting between his officials and the National Farmers' Union held at Edenbridge house, Carlisle, on 23 November.

  Mr. Ryder
  No transcript of proceedings was made. However, a letter summarising the data discussed at the meeting was sent to all farmers in the Cumbrian restricted area on 12 December and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Animals (Tuberculosis)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if will give details of research projects he is undertaking or funding into the spread and control of tuberculosis in farmed and wild animals; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he intends to increase research into the spread and control of tuberculosis in farmed and wild animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department is presently funding at a cost of approximately £0£5 million per annum a programme of research and development at the central veterinary laboratory, Weybridge designed to improve the diagnosis and control of tuberculosis in cattle and wildlife including badgers and deer. Appropriate research work will continue to be funded by my Department in recognition of the statutory and public health importance of this disease.

  Radioactivity
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the final report of the aerial survey of post-Chernobyl radioactivity in Cumbria will contain a contour map of radioactive cæsium deposition when published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes, the report will contain such a map.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the levels of radioactivity discovered in the post-Chernobyl aerial survey of Cumbria, he will extend the survey to cover all of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  At present there are no plans to extend the aerial survey outside the Chernobyl restricted areas.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to extend the terrestrial radioactive monitoring programme throughout England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The terrestrial radioactivity monitoring programme is a routine monitoring programme for food and environmental materials in the vicinity of each of the major nuclear sites. The feasibility of extending TRAMP beyond its present coverage is currently under consideration.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Dr. David Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will make tuberculosis in deer a notifiable disease; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he intends to introduce tuberculosis testing and compulsory slaughter arrangements for farmed deer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  When I met the British Deer Farmers Association recently I discussed with it the current problems with TB in farmed deer. I explained that the Government will introduce legislation to make TB in deer a notifiable disease and to make the keeping of movement records and the permanent identification of farmed deer compulsory. My officials are preparing the
  677
  necessary legislation and will shortly be consulting other interested organisations. Meanwhile, infected or suspected animals known to the Ministry, will continue to be subject to movement restrictions applied under article 15 of the tuberculosis (England and Wales) and (Scotland) Orders 1984.

  I have further agreed that my officials should explore with the industry the introduction of a voluntary tuberculosis attestation scheme for deer herds. Proposals for a scheme are at an advanced stage and letters have been sent to interested organisations inviting them to nominate representatives to form an advisory group to consider the proposals and their application.

  I believe that, taken together, these are useful measures to combat the problem of tuberculosis in deer. In response to suggestions from the industry that compulsory slaughter might be appropriate I have suggested that they should consider the possibility of an industry funded programme. We are awaiting an industry response on all these matters.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the duties and responsibilites of the atomic energy (unit C) section of his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The atomic energy unit of the food science division of the Ministry is now known as the food safety (radiation) unit. Its duties and responsibilities broadly cover all aspects of radioactivity in the terrestrial foodchain. This includes a responsibility, held jointly with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, for advising Ministers from nuclear sites, and inspection of those sites to ensure compliance. The unit is responsible for assessing, and advising on, the radiological consequences of all planned and accidental releases of radioactivity, in relation to agricultural and horticultural produce. It specifies the environmental surveillance programme to be carried out by nuclear operators and carries out its own programme of monitoring radioactivity in the terrestrial environment. The unit also provides technical advice on all aspects of food irradiation. It sponsors and directs scientific research programmes on relevant topics. Members of the unit represent the Ministry on many national and international advisory committees.

  Farmworkers (Set-aside Scheme)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will given an estimate of the number of farmworkers whose employment will be affected by participation by their employers or others in the set-aside scheme; and if he will take any action either to compensate those workers or to provide additional employment in the areas concerned.

  Mr. Ryder
  I am not yet in a position to estimate the employment effects of set-aside, which has only recently come into operation, but it offers a wide range of alternative land uses which should create new employment opportunities in the countryside, as will other recent Government initiatives such as the farm woodlands 678
  scheme and the farm diversification grant scheme. I do not therefore accept that there will be a net reduction in employment.

  Eggs
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many eggs which were infected by salmonella enteriditis have been found in the constituency of south Derbyshire during the last 12 months;

  (2) how many eggs have been found to be infected with salmonella enteriditis (a) in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and (b) nationally during the last 12 months; and what is the estimated number of eggs produced in the region annually.

  Mr. Ryder
  I regret that it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the number of infected eggs in any region. But I would agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the House on 5 December at column 19, that the risk to any individual is small and the risk to the healthy adult small indeed.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of any projections for the employment potential of forestry in rural areas in England.

  Mr. Ryder
  Employment provided by forestry and the wood-processing industries in the rural areas of England is likely to stabilise at about the present level.

  Woodlands (Set-aside scheme)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether felling licences for woodlands planted under the set-aside scheme will be granted without a replanting condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The control of tree felling rests with the Forestry Commissioners under powers contained in the Forestry Act 1967.

  When clear felling is proposed, it is at present the commissioners' normal policy to require replanting of the felled area. As we have already announced, for woodlands planted under the farm woodland scheme there will, subject to whatever legislation may be current at the time, be a presumption in favour of granting licences without such a replanting condition provided that in each case this has the support of the relevant agriculture department and there are no overriding environmental objections. Similar arrangements will apply to any planting done under the set-aside scheme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary for State of Northern Ireland how many nights each of the Ministers at his Department stayed in Northern Ireland during the months of June, July, August, September and October.

  Mr. Tom King
  The information is as follows:
  679

  June 1988

  July 1988

  August 1988

  September 1988

  October 1988

  Secretary of State

  9

  5

  6

  7

  7

  Mr. Stanley

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Stewart

  —

  —

  1

  9

  11

  Lord Lyell

  9

  8

  9

  10

  11

  Mr. Needham

  11

  9

  17

  5

  9

  Dr. Mawhinney

  4

  8

  1

  8

  6

  Mr. Viggers

  5

  5

  3

  11

  7

  Mr. Stanley left the Northern Ireland Office and Mr. Stewart joined in July 1988.

  Plastic Bullets
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary for State of Northern Ireland what are the rules laid down for the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not the Government's practice to disclose detailed operational instructions under which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland. However, the general rules governing the use of plastic baton rounds state that riot guns will be used only when judged to be the reasonable amount of force necessary in the protection of life and property, the preservation of the peace, and the prevention and detection of crime. The instructions are designed to minimise the possibility of injury to those at whom the baton rounds are aimed.

  Weapons (Theft)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary for State of Northern Ireland if he will list with dates any occasions when weapons have been stolen or have gone unaccounted for from police stations in Northern Ireland from 1970 to the present date.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Detailed information in the form requested is not readily available from existing central records and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Milk Processing Plants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary for State of Northern Ireland if the Industrial Development Board has concerned itself in the future development and ownership of Northern Ireland milk processing plants following the recent takeover bids by subsidiary firms of which the controlling interests are foreign based; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Industrial Development Board has been closely monitoring the progress of recent takeover bids in the milk processing sector in Northern Ireland but it is not part of its role to become involved in what are essentially commercial transactions.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Power Plants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has received from the United States of America about the reasons for the shutdown of the nuclear power plants(a) Hanford, Washington, (b) Rocky Flats, Colorado, (c) Savannah River, South Carolina and (d) Fernald, Ohio; whether any pollution
  680
  resulted from accidents or discharges at these plants; whether any of this information is relevant to nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The plants to which the hon. Member refers are military plants and are of designs which have no close parallels in the United Kingdom.

  Natural Gas
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the status of Council directive 13/2/1975404 EEC relating to the use of natural gas in power stations; and whether he proposes to seek its modification.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 gives effect to Council directive 75/404/EEC. I understand that, in part as the result of United Kingdom prompting, the European Commission is carrying out a review of the directive.

  Atomic Energy Division
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there are any restrictions on civil servants in his Department's atomic energy division travelling in COMECON countries for their holidays.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There are no specific restrictions against holiday travel in COMECON countries placed on members of this Department solely as a consequence of their being employed in our atomic energy division.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what restrictions exist on retired officials, who have worked in his atomic energy division, wishing to emigrate to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  There are no specific restrictions on the choice of country of residence on retirement placed on members of this Department solely as a consequence of their having been employed in our atomic energy division.

  Uranium
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he will take to ensure that weapons-grade uranium will not be sold into the wrong hands after privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 8 December 1988 at columns 328–29.

  Solar Housing Project
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many copies of the Linford/Pennylands solar housing
  681
  project book have been published; to whom copies have been distributed; and what has been the total cost of this publication.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Linford/Pennylands housing project book has not yet been published and we are currently reviewing the most effective way to promote the results of this work and other studies. Total cost of the work on the book so far has been £9,336. The three technical reports on the Linford and Pennyland houses on which the contents of the book are drawn are available from the British Lending Library on request. These reports are:Lindford low energy houses, report number S1025.
  A review of design and performance of Calor Solar Houses at Milton Keynes (this report relates to three houses at Linford), report number S1138.
  The Pennyland project, report number S1046.

  Copies of reports S1025 and S1046 are available from the Open university, price £10 (or £3·50 for a summary). No information is available on the number of copies distributed of the technical reports.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any indication from British Nuclear Fuels plc as to the likely cost and timetable for(a) the closure and decommissioning of the Calder Hall and Chapelcross nuclear production reactors, (b) the redundant reprocessing buildings at Sellafield and (c) the capping of trenches and repackaging of radioactive wastes at Drigg.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that BNFL hope to operate the Calder Hall and Chapelcross reactors until 1998. During the first three years after closure the reactors would be defuelled; subsequently the external plant items would be removed. The remainder of the reactor would be decommissioned within 100 years of closure. The discounted cost, excluding the cost of reprocessing any fuel remaining in the core but excluding a substantial contingency, is estimated at £224 million.

  Decommissioning of redundant reprocessing facilities at Sellafield has already commenced where this is possible. Currently redundant facilities are expected to be decommissioned by 2000, except for three facilities due to be decommissioned by 2016. The estimated cost of £250 million will be incurred throughout the period.

  The filled trenches at Drigg are being capped now. This work is expected to be completed in mid 1989. The remaining trench and future vaults will be capped as they become full. The estimated total cost is £5 million.

  All wastes currently stored at Drigg are to be transported to Sellafield at a cost of around £5 million. Any necessary repackaging will be carried out as part of this exercise.

  Electricity Generation
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what electricity generating capacity is likely to be commissioned before the year 2000; and if he will estimate when.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This will be a matter for the privatised electricity industry to decide. The Central Electricity Generating Board has said in evidence to the 682
  Hinkley Point public inquiry that it estimates there will be a shortfall in generating capacity of 15·5 GW by the year 2000.

  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his estimates of coal and nuclear generating costs at rates of return of 5, 8 and 10 per cent.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Central Electricity Generating Board has, in evidence to the Hinkley Point public inquiry, estimated the generation costs from coal and nuclear power stations in their "base case" as follows:

  p/KWh

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Discount Rate

  5

  8

  10

  PWR

  2·24

  3·09

  3·80

  Coal

  Coastal station

  2·50

  2·97

  3·35

  Inland station

  2·62

  3·03

  3·36

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual cost of heating a small semi-detatched standardised house in England, Scotland, and Wales in 1979 by(a) gas, (b) electricity, (c) coal and (d) oil, expressed in cash.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Table 1 gives the costs of heating a standardised two bedroom house in five regions of Great Britain. The costs have been adjusted to 1979 money values using indices of current fuel prices as published in "Energy Trends". Costs vary between regions according to differences in temperature and fuel prices.

  Table 1

  Calculated costs of Heating a Standardised Two Bedroom House by region and type of fuel in 1979 money values

  Gas

  Electricity

  Coal

  Oil

  £

  £

  £

  £

  West Country

  70–121

  68–124

  57–106

  42–73

  (118–169)

  (106–163)

  (126–175)

  (70–101)

  South East

  73–127

  73–132

  64–118

  44–75

  (121–175)

  (111–170)

  (138–192)

  (73–103)

  North East

  85–145

  83–153

  59–108

  51–86

  (157–193)

  (122–192)

  (118–168)

  (79–114)

  Scotland

  85–148

  85–155

  67–123

  51–86

  (157–196)

  (124–194)

  (133–190)

  (79–114)

  Wales

  70–121

  69–127

  61–113

  42–73

  (115–169)

  (106–163)

  (130–182)

  (69–99)

  Notes:

  (1) Costs are calculated on the same basis as last published (Feb. 1986) Monergy Guides with fuel prices adjusted to 1979 money values.

  (2) Figures given first are for space heating only. The range represents the well insulated and poorly insulated cases. Bracketed figures include water heating.

  (3) No standing charges or maintenance costs are included.

  (4) The calculations are based on standard wet central heating system for gas, coal and oil. For electric heating storage heaters run on off peak heating are assumed.

  Electricity Supplies
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on agreements made at the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers in Brussels on 8 November; and what are the implications for future construction of power plants in the United Kingdom
  683
  following from the decision to begin to establish a free market in electricity imports and exports in the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House of 14 November 1988 at column 426 on the outcome of the Energy Council of 8 November 1988.

  Trade in electricity is subject to the Treaty of Rome and therefore to the provisions in it precluding barriers to imports and exports between member states. The organisation of the industry in many member states however in practice may inhibit trade and on 8 November the Council endorsed the Commission intention to prepare a report on these practical problems. Importers of electricity into the United Kingdom already have common carrier rights and the right to sell to the utilities at a fair price established by the Energy Act 1983.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give in a table the position of nuclear power stations in England and Scotland, the planned capacity for each, the percentage available and the date of retirement of the stations.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the relevant electricity boards. I have asked the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to write to my hon. Friend in respect of nuclear power stations in England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will ask the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board to write in respect of nuclear power stations in Scotland.

  Fossil-fuel Power Stations
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the fossil-fuel power stations in the United Kingdom due to be retired before 2000, the capacity lost and the current plans for replacement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is an operational matter for the relevant electricity boards. I have asked the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to write to my hon. Friend in respect of fossil-fuel power stations in England and Wales. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will ask the chairmen of the Scottish and Northern Ireland electricity boards to write in respect of their power stations.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is, for each year since 1973, the total amount of uranium mined in Namibia which has been imported into Britain.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 30 November 1988]: There were no imports of uranium ore concentrate from Namibia for the United Kingdom's civil nuclear power programme until 1977. Between 1977 and 1984, some 8,600 short tons of U308 (some 6,600 metric tonnes of contained uranium) were imported. There have been no such imports since 1984.
  684
  All uranium imported into the United Kingdom for civil purposes is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement.

  Power Failure (Windsor)
  Dr. Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete his consideration of the power failure in Windsor referred to on 12 December,Official Report, column 641–2.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As required by the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, the Southern electricity board notified my Department of the power failure which occurred at Windsor on 2 December. The cause was a fire in a substation, which led to a loss of supply to just over 12,000 consumers. Supply was restored to around 8,500 of these within five hours, but some remained without supply for a further 26 hours. The board is carrying out a full investigation, and I expect to have a report shortly. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have considered the report.

  Oil Rigs
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his reply of 12 December, upon whom the cost of abandonment of North sea oil rigs will fall; whether he has plans to introduce regulations to require future installations to be constructed in a way which makes their abandonment easier and less expensive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Responsibility for the costs of abandonment of North sea offshore installations lies with the parties to the joint operating agreement relating to the installation, and any other persons given notice by the Secretary of State under section 1 of the Petroleum Act 1987. Tax and royalty relief will be available under the normal rules. The cost of abandonment is a factor which my Department is already able to take into account when considering field development proposals.

  Energy Use Labelling
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the policy considerations that underpin the departmental view that it is neither desirable nor appropriate that the Government interfere in the market to enforce energy use labelling for domestic or commercial property for sale or rental.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  It would not be justifiable to compel a householder or property owner to spend a sizeable sum of his own money in this way. However, the Energy Efficiency Office supports the development of voluntary energy labels, and I consider this to be the best way forward. Furthermore, enforcement of the use of energy labels would require sanctions for non-compliance; workable sanctions would be difficult to devise and implement.

  Kingsnorth and West Burton
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the status of Kingsnorth and West Burton following the announced deferment of the coal-fired power station project.
  685
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As I said to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on 9 December 1988, at column 379, my right hon. Friend is currently considering the CEGB's application for consent to construct a coal-fired power station at West Burton. He has received no application from the CEGB for consent to construct a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth. It is for the CEGB to decide whether and when to apply for consent to construct any new power station.

DEFENCE

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs were directly and indirectly supported by arms exports in(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As stated in the statement on the defence estimates, (Cm 344-11 Volume 2, 1988 Table 6·8) the total number of jobs directly and indirectly supported by defence exports amounted to 110,000 for the year 1985–86. This is the latest year for which Government figures are yet available.

  Aircraft (Chaff)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to prevent the ejection of chaff from aircraft over areas grazed by livestock; what representations he has received from farmers on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. In war, the deployment of chaff would help our aircraft to avoid detection by enemy radar and thus enhance the survival prospects of the aircraft and aircrew. Practice in deploying chaff effectively is, therefore, essential. Most chaff is dropped over the sea, but a small amount has to be dispersed over land, almost all in the area of training ranges. Such use is very strictly controlled. Following complaints by a small number of farmers in the vicinity of the electronic warfare training range at RAF Spadeadam in Cumbria, the Ministry of Defence commissioned an independent study into the properties of chaff. The Ministry of Defence is discussing with the National Farmers Union our intention to conduct a follow-on study of the effects of chaff upon livestock within the Spadeadam area for a period of two years commencing in the near future.

  Chemical Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to comment on information relating to chemical weapons capability.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information on which the assessment of chemical weapons capabilities set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" (Cm. 344-I) is based is highly classified, and it would not be in the national interest to discuss such information in detail.

  Airfields
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to review the future of the airfields operated by the Procurement Executive of his Department.
  686
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have decided to conduct a study into the future requirements for the airfields which support the research and development programme undertaken by the Procurement Executive. The airfields concerned are at royal aerospace establishment Bedford, aeroplane and armaments experimental establishment Boscombe Down and royal aerospace establishment Farnborough. The study will start early in the new year and all interested parties will have the opportunity to submit their views.

  Her Majesty's Forces (Car Registration Plates)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the transfer of car registration plates on civilian vehicles belonging to members of Her Majesty's forces in Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All personnel with private vehicles registered with the British Forces Germany licensing centre have now been issued with United Kingdom-style civilian number plates. This action will be completed today. I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the excellent work by all those involved in Germany and elsewhere, in this very considerable task, which has involved some 60,000 vehicles and which has been completed in a most timely and efficient manner.

  Ingram Model 10 Gun
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the calibre of the Ingram Model 10 sub-machine gun referred to in his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 229.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Nine millimetres.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Ingram Model 10 sub-machine gun was first issued to the Army in Northern Ireland; to which Army units it has been issued; and whether it can be fitted with a silencer.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the Ingram Model 10 was first issued to the Army in Northern Ireland in 1976. It is not our policy to comment on the issue of weapons to particular units. Although, like most firearms, the Ingram Model SMG Model 10 can be fitted with a silencer or suppressor, I am not aware of any occasion when a silenced or suppressed weapon has been used by the Army in Northern Ireland.

  Keenie Meenie Services
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which Ministry of Defence publications Keenie Meenie Services (KMS) have placed advertisements.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am not aware of any advertisements having been procured or placed in Ministry of Defence publications by Keenie Meenie Services (KMS).

  14 Intelligence Company
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) at what date 14 Intelligence Company was formed; and whether it is still operative;

  (2) if he will list the locations and dates of 14 Intelligence Company's tours of duty.
  687
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our policy to comment on intelligence matters.

  Troops (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing the number of troops deployed in Northern Ireland and the number of his Department's civil servants stationed there in each year from 1969 to the present date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information available on the Armed Forces and MOD civilian numbers in Northern Ireland on 1 January of each year since 1969 and at the latest date is as follows:

  Regular Forces

  UDR

  Civilians

  1969

  4,902

  —

  n/a

  1970

  8,816

  —

  n/a

  1971

  11,100

  4,000

  n/a

  1972

  15,323

  6,700

  n/a

  1973

  18,382

  9,000

  n/a

  1974

  16,991

  7,816

  n/a

  1975

  15,732

  7,676

  n/a

  1976

  15,627

  7,793

  n/a

  1977

  15,427

  7,616

  n/a

  1978

  15,287

  7,812

  3,364

  1979

  13,704

  7,761

  3,305

  1980

  13,389

  7,425

  3,231

  1981

  12,143

  7,431

  3,087

  1982

  11,799

  7,350

  2,947

  1983

  11,357

  7,026

  2,825

  1984

  10,260

  6,929

  2,761

  1985

  10,222

  6,468

  2,709

  1986

  10,090

  6,508

  2,693

  1987

  11,158

  6,535

  2,621

  1988

  10,887

  6,364

  2,618

  (1 July) 1988

  11,164

  6,310

  2,625

  n/a =not available.

  Regular Forces numbers in 1969, 1970 and 1971 are at 1 July.
  Recruitment to the UDR was authorised to commence on 1 January 1970.
  Civilian numbers prior to 1978 are not readily available and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.
  Civilian numbers in 1978 are at 1 April.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the official duties and responsibilities separately of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the regular forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The role of the armed forces in Northern Ireland, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, is to support the RUC in the defeat of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order. The duties and

  Premature voluntary release: Army 1983–1988

  Year

  1983: 3rd

  1984: 3rd

  1985: 3rd

  1986: 3rd

  1987: 3rd

  1988: 3rd

  Quarter

  Quarter

  Quarter

  Quarter

  Quarter

  Quarter1

  Male Officers

  507

  146

  562

  153

  695

  167

  661

  188

  661

  173

  501

  208

  Female Officers

  16

  6

  25

  8

  37

  4

  25

  7

  39

  9

  25

  11

  Servicemen

  1,907

  503

  2,491

  637

  2,936

  769

  2,643

  580

  2,997

  749

  2,702

  912

  Servicewomen

  76

  19

  86

  24

  101

  22

  130

  28

  128

  29

  107

  36

  Total

  2,506

  674

  3,164

  822

  3,769

  962

  3,459

  803

  3,825

  960

  3,335

  1,167

  1 figures up to end of September 1988

  688
  responsibilities in connection with this role are set out in statements on the defence estimates and in such documents as "Regulations of the Ulster Defence Regiment" published by HMSO.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 7 December, the British Nuclear Fuel plc team carrying out the programme audit of the capital works programme at Aldermaston and Burghfield communicated with his Department's officials prior to the completion of their report in March 1986.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Yes. The conduct of the audit required communication and consultation between the BNFL audit team and MOD officials during the audit period.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many programme audits of the capital works programme at Aldermaston and Burghfield have been carried out;

  (2) how many programme audits of the capital works programme at Aldermaston and Burghfield have been carried out by British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Three programme audits have been carried out on the AWE capital programme. These were carried out by British Nuclear Fuels plc, the controller, establishments research and nuclear, and John Brown (Engineers and Constructors) Ltd.

  AWE Capital Programme
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what, pursuant to his answer of 25 November.Official Report, column 50, was the nature of the indications that the estimated total cost of the AWE capital programme was rising.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 9 and 10 to appendix 4 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, "Control and Management of the Trident Programme"—HC 27.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Army premature voluntary release figures for the third quarter of each year from 1983 to 1988; and what are the comparable full year figures for each year from 1983 to 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information that my hon. Friend has requested is set out in the table:

HEALTH

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of reported cases of people affected by food poisoning caused by the bacterium salmonella enteritida found in eggs(a) for each year from 1980 to the present time and (b) for each calendar month during 1988.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not have readily available information for the years 1980–87 for cases of food poisoning caused by salmonella enteritidis found in eggs. To date, in 1988 there have been 46 outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning involving over 1,000 cases in which the most likely source of infection was eggs. The monthly breakdown of cases is as follows. While we do not have readily available precise figures, a high proportion of these cases was associated with the salmonella enteritidis bacterium.

  Number

  January

  27

  February

  —

  March

  —

  April

  60

  May

  302

  June

  159

  July

  207

  August

  145

  September

  114

  October

  127

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility his Department has for ensuring that foodstuffs are safe for human consumption and carry no risk of food poisoning; in what way this responsibility is carried out; how many and what type of staff are required; what is the annual cost to his Department; and what has been the change in the number of staff and the annual cost to his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the right hon. Member have such information as can be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost as soon as possible.

  Physicists
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the starting salary of National Health Service physicists who determine radiation output levels in radiotherapy departments; what is the percentage gap between this starting salary and that for physicists in industry with similar qualifications; how many jobs for physicists in the National Health Service are currently vacant; and what proportion this is of the total number.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Starting salaries of physicists who determine radiation output levels in radiotherapy departments range from £11,164 to £14,591 outside London, and from £12,431 to £15,858 in inner London. We do not collect information centrally about vacant physicist posts in the National Health Service or about starting salaries of physicists in industry.

  Childminders
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that applicants 690
  for registration as childminders take part in a local authority approved course of pre-registration training, and that registered childminders do not discriminate against children or their families on grounds of ethnic origin, culture or religion.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Local authority social service departments have a duty to register childminders under the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948. We intend to revise that legislation by introducing amendments in the Children Bill, now going through Parliament. We shall consider whether it is appropriate to specify training requirements in new legislation. Section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 makes it unlawful for a person who provides facilities or services to the public or a section of the public to discriminate against any person who seeks to obtain those services, that is to treat him less favourably on racial grounds. I am advised that childminders are within the scope of that provision and I am satisfied that it is not necessary or desirable to make any further provision in legislation.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) childminding associations, and (b) childcare and family service organisations, with regard to the White Paper, "The Law on Childcare and Family Services"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have received representations on the Government's proposals for new legislation to regulate independently provided day care and out of school services set out in the White Paper from the National Childminding Association, the Staffordshire County Childminding Association and the pre-School Playgroups Association. We intend to introduce amendments to the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948, which currently regulates these services, in the Children Bill.

  Operating Department Assistants
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether operating department assistants from agencies are paid at a higher or lower rate than National Health Service staff.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We have no information about the terms and conditions of service of operating department assistants employed by private agencies. Operating department assistants employed by the NHS receive a package of terms and conditions which includes items such as holidays, pensions and sick pay. Comparison is therefore not possible.

  Education Act 1981
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of district health authorities are not complying fully with section 10 of the Education Act 1981.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not collect this information centrally. However, the arrangements for identifying and providing for children under the age of five with special educational needs should be met through the continuous process of child health surveillance, including any necessary follow up arrangements, carried out by health authorities.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will outline the specific aspects of the AIDS education programme designed to meet the needs of the deaf;

  (2) if he will make a statement explaining the reasons for refusing to renew the grant to AIDS health education and advice for the deaf for 1988–89; and whether the grant will be restored in 1989–90;

  (3) if he will allocate an additional separate budget for AIDS education for deaf people in 1988–89.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  During 1987–88 and 1988–89 financial support amounting to nearly £113,000 was given by my Department and the Health Education Authority, to AIDS AHEAD a consortium of organisations representing the deaf, for the production and distribution of educational materials including videos, leaflets and posters.

  A bid by AIDS AHEAD for further funding in the current financial year is currently being considered, and they have been invited to submit an outline bid for 1989–90.

  In setting programmes for AIDS prevention my Department and the Health Education Authority will continue to take account of the educational needs of people with sensory impairment.

  Drug abuse
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a breakdown of how the £9·5 million paid during the current financial year to combat drug abuse has been allocated between regional health authorities.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The £9·5 million available to regional health authorities for the development of drug misuse services in 1988–89 has been allocated as follows:

  Regional health authority

  £'000s

  Northern

  603

  Yorkshire

  718

  Trent

  932

  The new clinical grading structure for nursing, midwifery and health visitor staff

  Number of staff in each of the old clinical grades assimilated to each of the new clinical grades on the basis of duties and responsibilities on 1 April 1988: Wigan

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff in post whole time equivalents

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  1G

  H

  I

  Nursing Auxiliary

  416·13

  383·66

  32·47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nursery Nurse

  5·64

  —

  5·64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled Nurse2

  406·60

  —

  —

  197·73

  81·81

  127·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Enrolled District Nurse2

  70·82

  —

  —

  —

  69·23

  1·59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Enrolled Nurse2

  28·30

  —

  —

  —

  12·47

  15·83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Nurse2

  310·25

  —

  —

  —

  53·94

  212·14

  44·17

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Midwife2

  44·98

  —

  —

  —

  2·00

  27·76

  15·22

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister2

  1·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·06

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nursing Sister II2

  228·78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91·43

  135·35

  2·00

  —

  Midwifery Sister II2

  87·72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36·76

  50·96

  —

  —

  District Nurse (Sister II)2

  59·12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·22

  54·90

  2·0

  —

  Nursing Sister I

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midwifery Sister I2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Health Visitor

  80·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77·00

  3·00

  —

  Senior Nurse 8

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·00

  2·00

  —

  Senior Nurse 8 (Midwife)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Senior Nurse 7

  17·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  14·00

  Senior Nurse 7 (Midwife)

  6·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·00

  Clinical Teacher

  4·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·00

  —

  Fieldwork Teacher

  12·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12·00

  —

  692

  Regional health authority

  £000s

  East Anglian

  393

  North West Thames

  719

  North East Thames

  765

  South East Thames

  718

  South West Thames

  576

  Wessex

  585

  Oxford

  530

  South Western

  617

  West Midlands

  1,044

  Mersey

  481

  North Western

  789

  Total

  9,470

  The allocations are based on each region's population in the 15 to 34 years age group.

  Grants
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national organisations to whom grants were made under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 in each of the years 1985 to 1988; and if he will state the amount paid in grants in each case.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Lists giving the details of grants awarded under the section 64 general scheme for the financial years 1984–85 to 1986–87 have been placed in the Library. For 1987–88 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 27 June at columns 124-29.
  The majority of the grant recipients are national in scope.

  Grading
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff from each of the old grades have been assimilated to each of the new grades in the recent clinical grading structure in Wigan district health authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The information requested is given in the table.
  693

  Numbers transferred to each new clinical grade

  Previous grade

  Staff in post whole time equivalents

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  1G

  H

  I

  Practical Work Teacher

  10·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·00

  —

  Tutor

  8·60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8·60

  Tutor Midwife

  3·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·00

  Post Basic Students

  Enrolled Staff Nurse

  46·00

  —

  —

  —

  46·00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deputy Sister

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister II

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Others

  2·80

  —

  2·80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  1,851·80

  383·66

  40·91

  197·73

  265·45

  385·44

  189·80

  318·21

  37·00

  33·60

  1 Excludes some additional G posts which health authorities have indicated they intend to create in future on existing two-sister wards.

  2 Excludes Post Basic Students.

  Medical Records Staff
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost per member of staff working in medical records, information and technology; and what comparable figure he has for(a) the United States of America, (b) France, (c) the Federal Republic of Germany and (d) Sweden, at current rates of exchange;

  (2) how many employees, and at what average rates, are engaged in medical records information and technology aged, respectively, 16 to 18 years, 19 to 24 years, 25 to 35 years, 36 to 50 years and 50 to 65 years; and what are the comparable figures for employees engaged in similar work in (1) the United States of America, (2) France, (3) the Federal Republic of Germany and (4) Sweden;

  NHS staff in post in England by Regional Health Authority at 30th September 1987

  Staff in Post1

  RHA

  Medical records

  Computing

  Medical2 records as percentage of total directly employed

  Computing2 as percentage of total directly employed

  England

  15,470

  2,320

  1·9

  0·3

  Northern

  810

  130

  1·5

  0·2

  Yorkshire

  1,140

  140

  1·9

  0·2

  Trent

  1,540

  120

  2·0

  0·2

  East Anglia

  590

  70

  1·9

  0·2

  North West Thames

  1,050

  130

  2·0

  0·2

  North East Thames

  1,310

  150

  1·9

  0·2

  South East Thames

  1,100

  180

  1·8

  0·3

  South West Thames

  940

  100

  2·1

  0·2

  Wessex

  1,090

  80

  2·5

  0·2

  Oxford

  680

  110

  2·0

  0·3

  South Western

  850

  180

  1·6

  0·3

  West Midlands

  1,640

  300

  1·9

  0·4

  Mersey

  930

  100

  2·2

  0·2

  North Western

  1,520

  150

  2·1

  0·2

  Source: Department of Health Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1Figures are for staff in Administrative and Clerical staff groups, and are independently rounded to nearest ten (10) Whole Time Equivalents.

  2Percentages are rounded to nearest decimal point, calculated on unrounded figures.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Widows
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows under the age of 45 years currently receive widow's pensions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 31 March 1988, the latest date for which information is available, approximately 4,500 widows aged under 45 were in receipt of widow's pension, which is payable to widows without dependent children.
  694
  (3) if he will provide the number of medical records information and technology staff analysed by each health service region and give for each region the percentage which the total of such staff bears to the overall number employed in that region.

  Mr. Mellor
  The work is performed by staff in a number of different grades and on different pay scales. Information on the average cost of such staff or on their breakdown into different age groups could not be provided except at disproportionate cost. The table shows, for each of the health service regions in England, the numbers of staff employed in medical records and in computing, and these numbers expressed as a percentage of total staff, at the latest available date of information. Comparative information on other countries is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has of the number of women aged between 40 and 45 years of age who will be widowed during 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Latest estimates indicate that approximately 4,000 women aged between 40 and 45 will be widowed during 1988.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last reviewed the level of the widow's pension; and if he will make a statement.
  695
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend reviewed the widow's payment at the same time as other benefits, before he made his uprating announcement to the House on 27 October.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number and proportion of pensioners' households in Derbyshire are in receipt of(a) occupational pension payments, (b) income support, (c) housing benefit and (d) both income support and housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The county of Derbyshire is served by the Department's local offices at Derby (Becket street), Derby (London road), Derby (Heritage gate), Ilkeston, Chesterfield and Buxton, although the boundaries are not conterminous.

  The number of income support claimants in receipt of a pensioner premium from these offices as at 31 August 1988, the latest information available, was 22,594.

  I regret that the other information requested is not available.
  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figures given include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit and the information is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will authorise Waltham Forest council to pay £5·58p per week transitional payment awarded to Mr. and Mrs. E. W. and R. J. Hirst of 77 Tyndall road, ElO on 26 August; and how many other residents in Leyton are similarly awaiting notification to the local authority by his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In this instance Mr. Hirst opted to have any transitional payments paid direct to Waltham Forest district council. Payments in respect of the period 4 April 1988 to 13 November 1988 have been sent to the council and in these circumstances it is for them to arrange direct with Mr. Hirst the level of future rent and rate liabilities to reflect any transitional payments received direct from the transitional payments unit. Details of applications outstanding within Leyton are not available.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct social fund officers to consider the possible award of a community care grant in every case they handle as a means of ensuring that the budget is not underspent at the end of the year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Social fund officers are advised in "Social Fund Manual" paragraphs 1026, 3053 and 4032 that for each application they should consider whether a community care grant would meet the particular need.

  Departmental Computer Systems
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list in the Official Report the types of intrusion he is trying to prohibit in designing his departmental computer security systems;

  (2) what steps are being taken to protect departmental computer systems against theft of data, malicious damage or illegal tampering with data;
  696
  (3) whether encryption techniques are being employed in his departmental security systems;

  (4) what plans he has to deal with the safety of back-up storage facilities for computer data in his departmental security systems;

  (5) what plans he has to control access to information held in individual files in his departmental computer systems;

  (6) whether his computer security system will restrict access to the originator of the data;

  (7) what recovery procedures are available to a security supervisor of his departmental computer system when pass words are forgotten;

  (8) if there is any system for monitoring terminal usage in his departmental computer system;

  (9) what procedures exist to remove protection in particular files to make a computer data available for general release;

  (10) whether the Department's security system includes physical devices such as keys to protect computer data.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has a large number of information technology systems in use and a wide range of measures are provided to safeguard them. Most of the existing computer systems are batch-processing systems, which are not susceptible to many of the threats of on-line systems. However, the Department has now begun to implement its operational strategy, a major programme of computerisation which will provide on-line services for all social security offices. In devising the strategy, we have taken great care to ensure the security of the system.

  Entry to a system will be limited to those terminals which have authorised access to the system. The use of terminals will be carefully monitored. External users are unable to dial directly into a system. A dial-back facility will be imposed which ensures that only authorised external users are allowed entry.

  Access to a system is limited to authorised users by means of passwords and personal identification devices. Passwords are changed regularly and whenever a password is compromised or forgotten the individual must be re-introduced to the system by an authorised officer.

  Most computer data files record the personal details of individuals. These records are treated confidentially and are not avilable for general release. Access to data will be controlled by a system of access permissions which will ensure that officers address only those data needed to perform their work. All transactions will be audited to enable management to monitor access to data and to ensure attempted breaches of security are recognised and reported. Where appropriate, data will be encrypted. Back-up copies of data will be held separately and securely for all systems.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest information on how much of the social fund has so far been allocated for loans at Ayr's Department of Social Security office; and how much has been allocated as a national average.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As at 30 October 1988 45 per cent. of the social fund loans allocation to Ayr local office had been spent. At the same date national expenditure was 43 per cent. of the total loans budget allocation.
  697
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any information as to whether there will be an underspend at local offices of his Department of the social fund allocation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Future levels of expenditure by local offices will be dependent on the numbers, types and financial values of applications made, their relative priorities, the amounts available in local office budgets and the exercise of discretion by social fund officers on individual cases. It is not possible at this stage to predict with certainty the extent to which individual local offices might underspend their budget allocations.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest estimates for the number of families who will receive family credit scheme benefit during 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information will be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper in the new year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for housing benefit transitional payments are still outstanding; and if all such cases will be finalised by the end of 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Up to 9 December 396,000 applications had been received at the transitional payments unit. Of these, 314,000 have been assessed and 146,000 cases are now receiving payments. The majority of the outstanding cases are awaiting the return of the inquiry form which is sent to the relevant local authority to obtain housing benefit details. Local authorities are being contacted asking them to deal with the forms as quickly as possible. The unit is processing cases as soon as these inquiry forms are returned by local authorities. All outstanding cases will be cleared once the relevant forms have been sent back.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average weekly payment currently paid out in housing benefit transitional payments; and what is the equivalent estimated sum in the next financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The current average weekly payment of housing benefit transitional payment is £4·06, but this figure has fluctuated over the period since payments began. This will continue up to 31 March 1989 which is the cut-off date for applications to be made. It is not therefore possible to predict the average payment for the next financial year until after this date when all applications have been processed.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the current estimated time for which housing benefit transitional payments are likely to continue.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No decision has yet been made on how transitional payments will finally be phased out although it has always been made clear that these payments will be reduced as people's circumstances change and the need for them is reduced. We have already 698
  announced that transitional payments will be reduced in the majority of cases by £2 per week next April. Some payments will therefore cease after the first year and others will not be paid after the end of year two. However, where large payments are being made the need will continue for several years.

  Benefit Changes
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his reply of 9 December, if he will set out the weekly change in benefit in 1989–90 for the individual claimant of(a) retirement pension, (b) widow's benefit, (c) unemployment benefit, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) attendance allowance and (f) mobility allowance, if mortgage interest payments were excluded from the calculation of the retail price index.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is as follows:

  proposed April 1989 rates, increased in line with published RPI

  April 1989 rates, increased in line with RPI excluding mortgage interest payments

  £

  £

  Full basic State Retirement Pension

  43·60

  43·30

  Widow's Pension standard rate

  43·60

  43·30

  Unemployment Benefit (under pension age)

  34·70

  34·45

  Invalidity Pension

  43·60

  43·30

  Attendance Allowance (higher rate)

  34·90

  34·65

  Mobility Allowance

  24·40

  24·25

  Benefit Levels
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of inflation has been allowed for in his Department's calculations leading up to the setting of social security benefit levels for(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The April 1988 uprating was based on the published movement in the retail prices index (RPI) between September 1986 and September 1987; the index rose by 4·2 per cent. The rates of the new income-related benefits took account of a rise of 3·2 per cent. in the RPI less housing costs over the same period.

  The uprating in April 1989 is based on the movement in the RPI between September 1987 and September 1988; the RPI rose by 5·9 per cent. and the RPI less housing by 4·7 per cent. over that period. Because the RPI was subject to an error which was corrected during the relevant period, benefits are being increased by more than the rise in the RPI where necessary to compensate for the error. Also in recognition of the error the premiums in the income-related benefits will receive an extra increase.

  Board and Lodging Payments
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on proposed changes in board and lodging payments for people in supported lodgings and the level of representations in respect of the changes.
  699
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 52 representations on supported lodgings were made in response to consultative proposals to reform income support payments to people in lodgings. There will be generous transitional measures to protect this group against loss when new arrangements for people in board and lodgings accommodation come into force next April.

  Tax Benefit Model Tables
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the April 1988 edition of the tax benefit model tables; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have placed copies of these tables in the Library today.

  We have improved the presentation of the tables. By including take-home pay and net income before as well as after housing costs, we have made clearer the steps by which gross earnings are turned into final figures. We have also replaced the heading "marginal tax rate" by "marginal tax/benefit withdrawal rate". This more accurately describes the marginal deduction from income which occurs as gross earnings rise. As in previous editions, and in order to illustrate fully the interplay between the tax and the benefit systems, the tables apply to local authority tenants. This year we have reflected this in the title of the tables.

  In the tables expenses which claimants are expected to meet themselves are now treated as a part of net disposable income rather than deducted as they were before. This applies in particular to water service charges and fares to work. For those out of work and receiving income support, water service charges are treated like any other ordinary item of domestic expenditure. No particular fares-to-work figure, including the average, can represent the range of costs which occur in practice. Moreover, as many as one in three working people have no travel-to-work costs. The tables, therefore, assume no fares to work or other work-related expenses, but anyone

  Month ending

  7 April 1987

  5 May 1987

  2 June 1987

  30 June 1987

  28 July 1987

  25 August 1987

  22 September 1987

  20 October 1987

  17 November 1987

  15 December 1987

  Pensioner claims

  44,940

  29,678

  32,581

  29,447

  29,493

  29,172

  25,576

  28,326

  33,385

  37,057

  Pensioner awards

  15,766

  11,488

  13,870

  13,099

  13,350

  13,474

  11,838

  12,832

  14,079

  14,533

  Unemployed claims

  237,316

  201,428

  243,318

  248,918

  407,275

  343,851

  359,695

  338,023

  278,325

  233,861

  Unemployed awards

  180,506

  157,519

  191,536

  197,897

  344,576

  277,976

  301,629

  273,011

  220,325

  184,073

  Other claims

  79,073

  62,457

  74,867

  72,503

  79,239

  80,120

  77,122

  83,390

  81,949

  74,023

  Other awards

  42,260

  34,891

  41,752

  40,598

  45,106

  44,986

  45,108

  47,792

  45,883

  41,008

  Month ending

  12 January 1988

  9 February 1988

  8 March 1988

  8 April 1988

  29 April 1988

  31 May 1988

  30 June 1988

  31 July 1988

  31 August 1988

  30 September 1988

  31 October 1988

  Pensioner claims

  27,525

  41,695

  50,079

  59,579

  17,867

  39,387

  37,469

  28,838

  28,347

  22,008

  28,563

  Pensioner awards

  10,603

  16,648

  17,805

  18,901

  8,399

  19,907

  19,278

  15,442

  15,037

  12,504

  15,550

  Unemployed claims

  186,828

  254,803

  219,918

  205,795

  87,810

  182,543

  227,364

  325,864

  274,054

  268,409

  246,098

  Unemployed awards

  147,739

  203,520

  169,123

  157,004

  74,097

  153,171

  192,091

  288,723

  234,408

  233,869

  207,785

  Other claims

  54,819

  79,503

  81,732

  84,677

  30,385

  62,676

  68,360

  63,974

  67,732

  63,963

  69,652

  Other awards

  30,631

  46,119

  43,924

  44,158

  19,914

  41,770

  46,355

  45,511

  47,938

  47,486

  49,329

  Note: Recording of the information changes from four weekly to calendar monthly from April 1988.
  700
  wishing to deduct a particular amount, for example, the estimated average amount of £6·30 (which would be consistent with previous years figures), can make the appropriate adjustment to the net income figures shown in the tables.

  Despite these improvements, the examples in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use average rents and local authority rates so they do not reflect the full range of housing costs which people can pay. The family characteristics in the tables are chosen only to illustrate various features of the social security system.

  Incomes
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing by how much the real equivalent incomes of the bottom 5 per cent. and the top 5 per cent. of the population rose between 1979 and 1985, after payment of housing costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: Estimates of real equivalent increase in income are available only in 10 per cent. bands. Between 1979 and 1985, the incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of individuals in Great Britain, calculated on the basis of "Households Below Average Income" and expressed after housing costs, rose by an average of 3 per cent. in real terms. The real incomes of the top 10 per cent. rose by 19 per cent.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for and awards of supplementary benefit or income support for persons over pension age, unemployed and in other circumstances were made in each month since April 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Obscene Publications Act
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals for seeking to amend the Obscene Publications Act.

  Mr. Renton
  We see no case for continuing the exemption of broadcasting from the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and would like to see it removed at the earliest opportunity. We have no other proposals at present.

  Wolverhampton Town Centre (Security Cameras)
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to whether similar action is being considered for other town centres, following the introduction by the police of security cameras in Wolverhampton town centre.

  Mr. John Patten
  The introduction of such schemes by the police in England and Wales is an operational matter for chief officers. Schemes of this kind might be considered in other "safer cities" areas. We are aware of similar schemes in Southampton, Bournemouth and King's Lynn.

  Remand Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the future of remand centres.

  Mr. Hurd
  About 65 individuals and organisations have sent in comments on the Green Paper "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System", which was published in July.

  Police Forces (Establishment)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces are unable to recruit to their permitted establishement at the present time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All forces in England and Wales are at, or very close to, their authorised establishment, although force strengths fluctuate in the light of recruitment and wastage patterns. Only four forces were more than 2 per cent. below establishment on 31 August: these were Bedfordshire 2·62 per cent. below establishment; Northants 2·35 per cent.; Cheshire 2·15 per cent.; and Avon and Somerset 2·07 per cent.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet ready to announce increases in police establishments for police forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce increases in police establishments for 1989–90. He will do so as soon as possible.

  Police/School Liaison Group
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the code of practice on police and schools produced by the police/school liaison group.
  702
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government welcome the spirit of co-operation between teachers and the police which is reflected in the production of their code of practice.

  I have to say that we do not agree with some of the detailed recommendations in the code, but we share the authors' view that police work in schools has an extremely important role to play in helping to develop the concept of social responsibility among young people and in maintaining the essential relationship of confidence and trust between the police and the public.

  National Disaster Unit
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to establish a national disaster unit.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are looking closely at our arrangements for handling disasters and I will be announcing our conclusions in the due course.

  Neighbourhood Watch Scheme
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of neighbourhood watch schemes operating(a) nationally and (b) in the Stafford area.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the beginning of October, there were almost 60,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales with 159 schemes in the Stafford police division covering nearly 17,000 households. This is an increase of almost 100 schemes over the last 12 months and the number of households covered has more than doubled.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of neighbourhood watch schemes operating(a) nationally and (b) in the Bury, South constituency.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of October, there were almost 60,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales and 288 schemes in the Bury metropolitan district division of the Greater Manchester police force area. I understand from the chief constable of Greater Manchester that figures are not readily available on the number of schemes in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many households in England and Wales are now members of a neighbourhood watch scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many households in England and Wales are now members of a neighbourhood watch scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are now almost 60,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales covering some 3·25 million households. Since the establishment of the first scheme in 1982, neighbourhood watch has caught the public's imagination and I welcome this clear evidence of their commitment to help the police in dealing with local crime problems.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of neighbourhood watch schemes operating(a) nationally and (b) in the north-west area.
  703
  Mr. John Patten
  At the beginning of October there were almost 60,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, with over a quarter of this total (16,800) in the Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside police force areas.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the neighbourhood watch scheme in crime prevention.

  Mr. John Patten
  Neighbourhood watch schemes can be effective in reducing crime and the fear of crime, in increasing public awareness of the part they can play in preventing crime, in improving co-operation between the public and the police, and in providing a focus for action for those who wish to work against crime.

  Crime Statistics (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest quarterly recorded crime figures in the South Yorkshire metropolitan area; and what were the comparable figures for(a) the previous quarter and (b) one year ago.

  Mr. John Patten
  There was a further drop in recorded crime. In the three months to September, South Yorkshire police recorded 20,883 notifiable offences. This compares with 22,000 in the second quarter of 1988 and 22,888 in the third quarter of 1987.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are, by grade, the manpower levels within the forensic science service; and what they were three and five years ago.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information is as follows:

  The numbers of staff in post in 1985 (at 31 December) and 1988 (at 31 October) at the six forensic science laboratories and the central research and support establishment (CRSE) were as follows:

  Grade

  1985

  1988

  5

  6

  6

  6

  8

  8

  7

  54

  51

  Senior Scientific Officer

  107·5

  118

  Higher Scientific Officer

  86

  95

  Scientific Officer

  101·5

  115·5

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  81·5

  54·5

  Laboratory Attendant

  11

  9·5

  Professional and Technology Officer

  2

  2

  Totals

  457·5

  459·5

  Staff in post figures for 1983 for the Chorley forensic science laboratory are not available. The number of staff in post at the other laboratories (including CRSE) on 31 December 1983 were as follows:

  Grade

  1983

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  43

  Senior Scientific Officer

  101

  Higher Scientific Officer

  76·5

  Scientific Officer

  76·5

  704

  Grade

  1983

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  90

  Laboratory Attendant

  9·5

  Professional and Technology Officer

  1

  Total

  408·5

  Voluntary Bodies (Participation)
  Mr. David Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that the policies of all public bodies and agencies for which he is responsible support and encourage the role of the citizen in participation in voluntary bodies.

  Mr. John Patten
  Involvement in voluntary work is one of the ways in which responsible and active citizens make a positive contribution to their community and I take every opportunity to encourage this. Many of the bodies and agencies for which I have responsibility already work closely with voluntary organisations and with individual volunteers. Volunteers do valuable work for example in the crime prevention field and with young offenders. The Home Office also provides grant aid to a number of organisations which support and promote volunteering.

  "Death on the Rock"
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received on the steps taken by the Independent Broadcasting Authority in relation to Thames Television's programme "Death on the Rock".

  Mr. Renton
  The board of Thames Television has appointed two independent assessors to inquire into the making of the programme "Death on the Rock". The IBA, as the regulatory authority for the ITV companies, will consider the report from Thames as soon as it becomes available, and decide whether any action is necessary.

  Broadwater Farm (Incident)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made inquiries into the alleged violations of police procedures during investigations into the death of PC Blakelock at Broadwater Farm in 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An investigation into allegations and complaints against the police is being carried out under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to intervene in this process.

  Police Officers (Stress)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss stress among police officers.

  Mr. Hurd
  At the meeting of the Police Advisory Board on 25 October, which was attended by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, I announced that a central facility would he provided within the Home Office to advise chief officers of police on matters of organisation health and welfare, including stress. I have no plans for a further meeting with the president on this issue.

  Offensive Weapons
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to prevent the manufacture and supply of offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have taken powers in the new Criminal Justice Act enabling the Secretary of State to specify, by affirmative order, weapons which it will be an offence to manufacture, sell, import, hire, give or lend. The purpose of this provision is to take out of circulation altogether weapons which have no legitimate use. An order specifying 14 martial arts and other weapons was recently debated and approved by Parliament. The order was made on 17 November and comes into force on 18 January 1989.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals his Department has to limit the manufacture and supply of offensive weapons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have taken powers in the new Criminal Justice Act enabling the Secretary of State to specify, by affirmative order, weapons which it will be an offence to manufacture, sell, import, hire, give or lend. The purpose of this provision is to take out of circulation altogether weapons which have no legitimate use. An order specifying 14 martial arts and other weapons was recently debated and approved by Parliament. The order was made on 17 November and comes into force on 18 January 1989.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the fire service(a) in south Yorkshire and (b) in other metropolitan county areas.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of the fire service(a) in West Yorkshire and (b) in other metropolitan counties.

  Mr. John Patten
  The budgets set by the fire and civil defence authorities in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire in respect of all their functions show expected total expenditure for 1988–89 to be £22–422 million and £37–558 million, respectively. Corresponding information in respect of the other metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities is as follows:

  £ million

  Greater Manchester

  46·931

  Merseyside

  31·932

  Tyne and Wear

  22·982

  West Midlands

  44·227

  Robbery (Sentences)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the last year in the average sentence for robbery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The average sentence imposed on men aged 21 or over (this being the average generally used for purposes of comparison) increased by 9 per cent. in the last year and by over 20 per cent. in the last three years.

  Broadcasting Satellites
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent broadcasting of obscene and violent programmes in the United Kingdom from foreign-owned satellites.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department will be taking to prevent broadcasting of obscene and violent programmes in the United Kingdom from foreign-owned satellites.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent broadcasting of obscene and violent programmes in the United Kingdom from foreign-owned satellites.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friends to paragraphs 7.12 to 7.14 of our White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" (November 1988, Cm. 517), copies of which were placed in the Library. Since the White Paper was published, we have made further significant progress, at last month's Stockholm ministerial conference, towards achieving agreement on an effective Council of Europe convention on transfrontier broadcasting (to which paragraph 7.13 refers). Subject to further discussion by Ministers' deputies, prospects now seem good for opening the convention for signature early in 1989.

  HIV Infection (Prisoners)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of HIV infection amongst prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 5 December 1988 the number of reported HIV antibody positive prisoners in England and Wales was 55. These are the identified cases. An informed assessment of the rate of infection in the prison population could be made only by taking the unacceptable step of requiring prisoners to submit to blood testing arrangements different from those which apply in the general community. Prisoners will, however, where appropriate be included in future approved research programmes based on anonymous blood testing.

  Prison Kitchens
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to meet the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to discuss the inspection of prison kitchens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have plans to meet representatives of the institution at present.

  Official Secrets Bill
  32. Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the need for a public interest defence in the Official Secrets Bill.
  Mr. Hurd
  From the publication of our White Paper on the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 on
  707
  29 June up to 6 December I had received representations from 13 organisations and eight individuals supporting a public interest defence. In addition, right hon. and hon. Members had passed to me representations supporting such a defence which they had received from three organisations and three individuals.

  Broadcasting White Paper
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government's White Paper, Cm. 517.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government White Paper, Cm. 517.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish broadcasting media regarding the Government's White Paper, Cm. 517.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) earlier today.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his broadcasting White Paper proposes that the new television channels should be available only to EEC companies and that each such station should have a required quota of programmes produced in the EEC.

  Mr. Renton
  Under European community rules the Government must not discriminate between United Kingdom and other EC television companies. The White Paper's proposals reflect well-established principles in existing legislation. Terrestrial television channels have power, immediacy and influence, and are a scarce national resource: the Government do not consider it desirable that non-EC companies should be able to control them. We are considering further whether this restriction should also apply to the proposed franchise for the local delivery of TV. The requirement for a proper proportion of programme material of EC origin should help to maintain a competitive and flourishing United Kingdom programme market.

  Guildford Pub Bombing
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer the Guildford four cases 708
  to the Court of Appeal, in view of the new evidence submitted to him concerning the cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Guildford and Woolwich Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of the convictions of the four people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) on 6 December at column 113.

  Children (Rights)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that United Kingdom immigration rules and the United Nations draft conventions on the rights of the child are consistent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The draft conventions remain under discussion and I have no present plan to make changes to the rules for this purpose.

  Frontier Controls (Ports)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to alter frontier controls and arrangements at United Kingdom ports of entry in advance of 1992.

  Ports (Controls)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to controls at United Kingdom ports of entry after 1992.

  Frontier Control
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on control of EEC frontiers after 1992.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 14 December 1988 at columns 576-77.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Carlisle Report (Parole)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will estimate the effects upon the total prison population of the implementation of the Carlisle report on parole.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The review committee's assessment of the prison population effects of the proposed scheme is given in paragraphs 429-434 and in table 10, appendix 5 of its report, "The Parole System in England and Wales", November 1988, Cm. 532.

  Child Destruction
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates of Her Majesty's prisons are currently serving custodial sentences for the crime of child destruction under the Infant Life Preservation Act.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The records held centrally show one offender currently serving a custodial sentence having been convicted under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. I also refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

  Footballers (Incidents)
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has discussed with chief police officers in England and Wales the role of police in attendance at football grounds in relation to incidents involving players on the field of play.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It is for the appropriate chief officer of police to decide whether criminal charges should be brought as a result of incidents during football matches. Any cases in which charges are made in England and Wales are then referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that adequate resources are available to police authorities.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to increase the resources and staffing of the South Yorkshire police.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office meets, through police specific grant, 51 per cent. of all police authorities' expenditure for policing purposes. An additional contribution is made from central funds through block grant.

  Applications by police authorities for increases in police establishments in 1989–90 are under consideration and decisions will be announced as soon as possible. Eight hundred police posts are available outside London.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Association of Chief Police Officers; and what was discussed.
  710
  Mr. Hurd
  I hold many meetings with the officers and committees of ACPO. The most recent was with members of the ACPO traffic committee on 24 October. The matters that we discussed included police breath-testing powers and the enforcement of road traffic law.

  Gaelic Broadcasting Service
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from those campaigning for a Gaelic language broadcasting service.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received representations on this matter from various interested parties on behalf of the Gaelic community in Scotland, including the report "Towards a Gaelic Television Service" submitted by Comunn na Gaidhlig. Those representations were taken into account in the preparation of the Government's recently published White Paper on broadcasting which, amongst other things, addresses the question of Gaelic broadcasting and how it might benefit from future television services.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding Gaelic broadcasting since the publication of the broadcasting White Paper.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received one representation from a Member of Parliament on behalf of his constituent. The question of Gaelic broadcasting, and how it might benefit from future television services, is addressed in the Government's recently published White Paper on broadcasting, and Home Office officials have met Comunn na Gaidhlig to discuss the implications of this part of the White Paper.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to discuss delays in processing claims.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no plans for such a meeting at present.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further resources he intends to make available in order to reduce the backlog of submissions to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) on 1 December at column 395.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time between the injury and receipt of compensation payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  The statistics kept by the board use the date of application as the baseline and not the date of the injury. The available information on the proportion of cases submitted to a single member for decision within certain periods from the date of application is published in the Board's annual reports. The most recent report was published on 6 December (Cm. 536).

  EC (Security and Frontier Controls)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent talks he has had with European Ministers about security and frontier controls following implementation of the single European market, in particular in connection with the fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Hurd
  I attended a meeting of Trevi Ministers in Athens on 9 December under the presidency of the Greek Minister for Public Order, Mr. Petsos. We agreed that Trevi should pursue its study of border checks, which had been instituted at my initiative at our previous meeting in Munich, so that the changes to take place on 1 January 1993 should not adversely affect prevention of terrorism, drug trafficking and other serious crime in the Community.

  In view of recent events and the important contribution that effective extradition arrangements can make to counter terrorism, we also agreed to ask our Foreign Minister colleagues to arrange for the working group on judicial co-operation to examine co-operation over the preparation and processing of extradition applications as part of its consideration of the subject as a whole. We also agreed an updated assessment of the terrorist threat to the Community countries.

  In recent months I have also had bilateral discussions with my French, Italian and Spanish counterparts on terrorism, including the security aspects of frontier checks and controls.

  European Court of Human Rights (Brogen and Others)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet considered the implications for United Kingdom legislation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogen and others; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the statement I made on this matter when moving the Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 6 December at columns 210-11.

  Crimes of Violence (Sentences)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider legislation to ensure greater consistency of sentencing for crimes of violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  From 1 February next, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Attorney-General will be able to bring before the Court of Appeal for review sentences imposed by the Crown court for the most serious offences which appear unduly lenient. We have no plans for further legislation for the purpose which the hon. Member suggests.

  Rape
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the rise in the average sentence for rape over the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The average length of sentence imposed on men aged 21 or over (this being the average 712
  generally used for purposes of comparison) upon conviction of rape at the Crown court increased by 16 per cent. between 1986 and 1987, the latest year for which figures are available. The average sentence is now over six years.

  Old-Age Pensioners (TV Licence)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce free television licences for all old age pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. This suggestion has been rejected by the House on a number of occasions.

  Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been as a result of prosecutions brought under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

  Prisoners (Solitary Confinement)
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales are currently held in solitary confinement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Solitary confinement, which entails deprivation of all human contact, is not available as a punishment in England and Wales. Cellular confinement may be awarded as a punishment at a disciplinary hearing, but figures are not available for the number so held at any one time. In such circumstances, governors have discretion concerning matters such as visits, education facilities and religious observance.

  Independent Television Franchises
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his White Paper proposal to auction the independent television franchises.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received a number of representations on the proposal for licences to be allocated by competitive tender subject to a quality threshold. We have invited comments on the White Paper before 28 February 1989.

  Parking Enforcement
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report of the working party on parking enforcement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the parking enforcement working party is nearing the end of its deliberations and is likely to submit its report early in the new year. A decision about publication of the report will be taken when it is received.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions have been reached by his Department's parking enforcement working party; and if he will make a statement.
  713
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the parking enforcement working party is nearing the end of its work, and is likely to submit its report early in the new year.

  Abortion
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last inquest was carried out on a baby aborted under the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am not aware of any such inquest. This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he used when deciding that it was not in the public interest to order an inquest on the baby of 21 weeks gestational age aborted at the Carlisle city general hospital in July 1987.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The conclusion was reached after careful consideration of all the information provided by the coroner.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the procedures adopted in determining whether inquests should be held on the deaths of babies aborted alive.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  After the decision was made not to direct the coroner to hold an inquest into the death of the Carlisle baby, we received some representations from Members and six letters from the public variously supporting or seeking reconsideration of the decision.

  Burglary
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making in reducing burglary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There were 73,000 fewer recorded burglaries in England and Wales in the 12 months ending September 1988, compared with the corresponding period to September 1987, a decrease of 8 per cent. This is very encouraging and great credit is due to the police and the public in their co-operation in a range of crime prevention measures, in particular neighbourhood watch.

  Rural Violence
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to curb rural violence.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris).

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the BBC to discuss the future of broadcasting.

  Mr. Hurd
  I meet the chairman of the BBC often to discuss this and other matters.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend the legislation on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Renton
  We are continuing our consultations with interested parties to see if we can find a practicable solution which will command sufficient support.

  Young Children (Attacks)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to prevent and reduce the number of violent attacks upon young children.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 9 December 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), at column 354.

  Punishment in the Community
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for punishment in the community.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals are set out in the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community" (Cm. 424). We have invited responses to our long-term proposals by 31 January 1989. Meanwhile we issued in August an action plan for dealing with young adult offenders (those aged 17 and under 21). This calls on probation services in co-operation with other agencies to make arrangements to enable more offenders to be kept out of custody.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his Department's paper, "Punishment in the Community", Cm. 474.

  Mr. John Patten
  A number of representations have been received from individuals and organisations. We asked for comments by 31 January 1989, and we shall then give detailed consideration to all the responses.

  Football Clubs (Membership Schemes)
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to legislate to ensure that a conviction for any crime of violence will automatically disqualify the offender from the proposed national football membership scheme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the report of the working party chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, published on 9 November. A copy is in the Library. The working party recommended that disqualification from membership should be linked specifically to conviction for football related offences. The Government's conclusion will be made known shortly when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment introduces a Bill on the football membership scheme.

  Passport Office (Staff)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the
  715
  claim by the Passport Office trade union side for an increase in numbers of permanent staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As I indicated in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 28 November at column 72. passport department officials are in consultation with the trade unions about staffing levels.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about staffing levels in passport offices.

  Mr. Renton
  A number of hon. Members have written recently on the matter, following an approach to them by the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. Replies will be sent shortly.

  Metropolitan Police (Fingerprinting)
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the average length of time in the Metropolitan police area taken for the fingerprint department to match a set of fingerprints found at the scene of crime with those of a suspect or suspects.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that searches of

  1985

  1986

  1987

  11988

  London

  418,036

  437,857

  355,475

  342,437

  Liverpool

  446,813

  556,664

  554,993

  583,865

  Peterborough

  392,460

  482,797

  480,422

  470,982

  Newport

  369,981

  427,800

  439,302

  452,769

  Glasgow

  137,098

  159,954

  159,723

  142,726

  Belfast

  34,655

  45,472

  51,305

  55,713

  1,799,043

  2,110,544

  2,041,220

  2,048,492

  1January to September.

  Police Service (Value for Money)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to secure value for money in the police service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Home Office shares with chief officers of police and local police authorities the responsibility for securing value for money in the police service. Significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness have been achieved, with the encouragement and support of my Department and Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, through, for example, the civilianisation of police posts (some 3,300 police officers were released for operational duties in this way in the last five years or so); the streamlining of procedures and the elimination of unnecessary paperwork; the contracting out of support services; and the introduction of efficiency scrutinies in the police service. The Home Office pays full regard to value for money in exercising central controls on police manpower and capital expenditure on land and buildings, and in fulfilling my right hon. Friend's responsibilities as police authority for the Metropolitan police; in providing central services for training, research and development, science and technology; and in promoting good practice across a wide range of police activity.
  716
  this kind are generally completed within a month. Priority is, however, given to cases involving serious offences and where there is a good quality mark, and the time taken in a particular case will depend therefore on the nature of the offence and the quality of the mark obtained at the scene.

  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On Friday 2 December, the latest date for which figures are readily available, 49,235 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 937 prisoners were held in police cells.

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of passport applications at each passport office in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, to September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The table shows the number of passports issued in each of the last three years, and in the first nine months of this year.

  Drug Taking
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources he intends to make available in order to reduce drug taking.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In accordance with the Government's strategy for reducing both supply and demand, extra resources are being committed for: reducing supplies from India by a contribution of £1 million a year through the United Nations fund for drug abuse control; increasing the effectiveness of enforcement by the provision of some £10 million for additional specialist drugs investigators and improved technical aids for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; developing prevention and education through the latest phase of the drug prevention publicity campaign and, in England and Wales, by an additional year of central funding for drugs education co-ordinators in the area of each local education authority; and improving treatment and rehabilitation. An additional £3 million is to be provided in 1988–89 for the expansion of drug misuse services in England to help prevent the spread of HIV infection.

  Scientific Advisory Group
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments are made to the
  717
  members of the scientific advisory group under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Mason FRS; and what is the total expenditure made by his Department on this group to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No payments are made to members of the forensic science service scientific advisory group other than reimbursement of travelling and subsistence expenses under the usual Civil Service rules.

  Horserace Betting Levy Scheme
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much progress has been made in discussions over the 28th horserace betting levy scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The chairman of the Horserace Betting levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee have been asked to submit written representations about the disputed 28th levy scheme to us by 16 December. Each side will then be invited to comment on the other's memorandum of representations. We intend also to make available to both sides any other representations which we receive about the dispute. It will be open to either side to comment on such representations as it wishes. If either side to the dispute wishes to add to its written representations any further points at a meeting with my right hon. Friend, it is our intention to ensure that both sides are represented at any such meeting. This will afford each side the opportunity to comment on points made by the other.

  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a progress report to the House on the tape recording of interviews with suspects, indicating in how many police authority areas this procedure is now in full operation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We understand that about one-third of all forces will be equipped to tape record interviews forcewide by April 1989. By the same date, all forces are expected to have completed plans to introduce tape recording in at least part of their force area. The tape recording of interviews in respect of indictable offences and offences triable either way should be standard practice throughout England and Wales by 1991.

  Excessive Drinking
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to deter foolish and excessive drinking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have strengthened the powers of licensing justices. Since 22 August, they have had discretion to grant or refuse late-night drinks extensions; from 1 March 1989 they will be in a position to order, if it is justified, the revocation of current licences for licensed premises at any licensing session. We have also strengthened the law on sales to under-age drinkers. We have prepared crime prevention advice and approved the experimental byelaw in Coventry banning the consumption of alcohol in designated streets and other public places. Similar byelaws will be introduced in six other towns. The ministerial group on alcohol misuse is taking forward further work on other aspects of alcohol misuse.

  Police Federation
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet the chairman of the Police Federation; and what matters he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Hurd
  I met the chairman of the Police Federation at a social function on 1 December, when conversation ranged over a number of police matters. The date for our next meeting has not yet been fixed.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends taking to control the unregulated proliferation of private security firms.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards matters raised in the report on the private security industry produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have made it clear that they look to the private security industry to provide self-regulation. However, following publication of the report on the industry by the Association of Chief Police Officers, I have asked officials to consider with the police and the industry ways in which self-regulation might be improved.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider extending to England and Wales the regulations concerning the registration of private security company employees to be registered and vetted, currently in force in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John Patten
  The reason for regulating security firms in Northern Ireland is to prevent proscribed organisations from benefiting from their activities. There is no equivalent need for statutory regulation in England and Wales, but following publication of the report by the Association of Chief Police Officers on the private security industry, we are considering ways in which the industry's self-regulatory role might be improved.

  Non-violent Crime
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to achieve a reduction of custodial sentences for offenders convicted of non-violent crimes.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals are set out in the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community" (Cm. 424). We have already taken steps to give effect to those which can be implemented under present legislation: we have circulated an action plan to encourage initiatives in developing non-custodial sentences for young adult offenders, and we have issued draft national standards for community service orders. By ensuring that community service is rigorous and demanding, we hope to encourage its use for offenders who might otherwise receive a custodial sentence.

  Prisons (Building and Refurbishment)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new prison building and refurbishment initiatives are planned during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The expansion and acceleration of the prison building programme continues with 18 new prisons at various stages of planning, design and construction in addition to the eight new prisons which have already opened. Seven prisons are now being constructed, the first of which should be ready for occupation in 1990. At least two further prisons will be added to this programme from the additional funds recently announced by my right hon. Friend the

  The new prison building programme

  Name

  Type of establishment

  Number of places

  Ready for occupation

  Already open

  1. Wayland

  Category C

  484

  1985

  2. Stocken

  Category C

  300

  1985

  3. Thorn Cross

  Youth Offender Institution

  300

  1985

  4. Full Sutton

  Category B (Dispersal)

  444

  1987

  5. Littlehey

  Category C

  484

  1988

  6. Mount

  Youth Offender Institution

  484

  1988

  7. Swaleside

  Category B

  504

  1988

  8. Garth

  Category B

  512

  1988

  Under construction

  9. Brinsford

  Training prison

  448

  1990

  10. Bullingdon

  Local prison

  620

  1991

  11. Whitemoor

  Training prison

  522

  1991

  12. Woolwich

  Local prison

  850

  1991

  13. Lindholme II

  Training prison

  620

  1991

  14. Lancaster Farms

  Youth Offender Institution

  360

  1992

  15. Milton Keynes

  Local prison

  544

  1992

  Planning clearance obtained

  16. Swaleside II

  Training prison

  620

  1991

  17. High Down (Banstead)

  Local prison

  620

  1991

  18. Ashford

  Training prison

  600

  1992

  19. Doncaster

  Local prison

  720

  1994

  Planning clearance being sought

  20. Hewell Grange

  Local prison

  620

  1991

  21. Holme House Farm (Tees-side)

  Local prison

  620

  1992

  22. Kirkham

  Training prison

  600

  1992

  23. Rochdale

  Local prison

  600

  1994

  Location and categories yet to be decided

  24-28.

  Terrorism
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have received a number of letters from members of the public expressing support for the Government's proposals for new measures aimed at curbing the finances of terrorist organisations, provision for which is now contained in the Bill. We have also consulted representatives of the banks and other financial institutions, both in London and Belfast, about these proposals and they have welcomed them and assured the Government that they will be co-operating fully with police investigations into dealings in suspected terrorist funds once the new provisions come into force.
  720
  Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement. The full programme of new prison building is set out in the table.

  The prison building programme includes major capital projects at existing establishments. Many of these schemes, some of which will take a number of years to complete, involve refurbishment and modernisation of living accommodation, including the provision of integral sanitation, and extra places. Work is also in progress to provide new places at existing establishments by the construction of ten 100-place houseblocks at Dover, Featherstone, Littlehey, Glen Parva (two), Full Sutton (two), New Hall, Stocken and Wayland. Details of the individual major capital projects for the coming year are currently being assembled and these will in due course be published as part of the 1989-90 Supply Estimates.

  Police Establishments (Civilians)
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers of civilians currently employed in police establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 42,107 in England and Wales at the end of August (counting part-time staff on a two-for-one-basis).

  Women Police Officers
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women police officers there are in the United Kingdom police forces; and what percentage this is of the total forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for police forces in England and Wales. At 31 August 1988
  721
  there were 12,936 women police officers in England and Wales. This represents 10·4 per cent. of the total police strength.

  Probation Service
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned level of spending on the probation service in England for each of the next five years in real terms.

  Mr. John Patten
  Current expenditure on the probation service by local authorities in England is estimated to be £205 million in 1988–89. This represents an increase in real terms of over 60 per cent. since 1979–80, while probation service manpower has risen by 38 per cent. over this period. The proposed level of expenditure in 1989–90 is £219 million. The Government's expenditure plans down to 1991–92, which are set out in cash terms, will be published early next year in the forthcoming public expenditure White Paper.

  Cigarettes (Children)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were brought against retailers for illegal sales of cigarettes to children in the last year for which figures are available; of these how many led to convictions; where these cases were heard; what penalties were imposed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", 1987, supplementary volume 1 (table S.1. (A) under classification 144) a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to improve facilities for people awaiting entry into Wandsworth prison to visit inmates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no present plans to improve facilities for visitors waiting access to Wandsworth prison, except that separate entry into the prison for pedestrians will be provided next year. This should enable visitors to be admitted rather more quickly than is possible at present.

  Empty Properties (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many properties in the City of Durham constituency which are owned by his Department by subordinate organisations for which his Department is responsible, or by the police authority, are standing empty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of properties owned by the Home Office in the City of Durham constituency that are currently standing empty is 53 of which 15 are currently in the course of disposal, two have structural faults awaiting rectification; and three are awaiting occupation. No records are maintained by the Home Office of vacant properties in the other categories mentioned.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to make the irresponsible prescribing of drugs a criminal act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 the Secretary of State may, subject to certain statutory procedures, give a direction against any practitioner who in his opinion is or has been prescribing any controlled drugs in an irresponsible manner, prohibiting him from prescribing any or all controlled drugs. It is an offence to contravene such a direction. These provisions seem to us sufficient.

  Passports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. Members about the work of the passport department since 1 July.

  Mr. Renton
  A total of 342 such letters were received between 1 July and 7 December.

  Prisons (Rule 43)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prison inmates on rule 43 on 1 December 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Figures for the dates mentioned are not readily available. The number of male prisoners on rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 1 January 1988 was 1,916 and on 1 July 1988, the most recent date for which information is available, was 2,126.

  MI5
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in light of the Security Services Bill, he will make it his policy to publish annually the establishment figures for MI5.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Mr. Albert Baker
  Mr. Ken Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case of Mr. Albert Baker No. 241254, Her Majesty's prison, Long Lartin, and consider whether he could complete the rest of his sentence in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. Baker's request for a transfer to Northern Ireland was turned down in February this year after a full review. Mr. Baker was told in April that the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office would be willing to reconsider the matter on the basis of further reports on his suitability for transfer after a year had elapsed.

  Deportations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases regarding applications for deportation of Italian nationals from the United Kingdom to Italy in connection with terrorist offences are
  723
  still outstanding; when a decision is likely to be reached by him on each such case; and how many requests for deportation by the Italian authorities in the last five years have been agreed to and duly implemented.

  Mr. Hurd
  I assume that the question relates to extradition rather than deportation. There are no requests outstanding from Italy for the extradition of persons in connection with terrorist offences. Within the last five years there has been one request by the Italian authorities for the extradition of a person believed to have terrorist connections and she was surrendered in 1986.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in reaching a decision on the application for the deportation of Roberto Fiore to Italy where he is wanted in connection with the bombing in 1980 of Bologna railway station.

  Mr. Hurd
  In 1981 the Italian Government requested the extradition of Mr. Fiore for a number of terrorist offences, but the request failed in the courts because a prima facie case could not be established. This requirement has of course been removed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  No further request has been received from the Italian Court, but Mr. Fiore has been informed that consideration is being given to his deportation under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971. He has made representations against such action, and the case is being further considered.

  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the names of the 152 prisoners who escaped from British prisons between 1 January 1981 and 30 September 1988 and who were unlawfully at large on that date;

  (2) if he will list the names of the 52 prisoners who escaped from closed or high security prisons, between 1 January 1981 and 30 September 1988 and who were unlawfully at large on that date;

  (3) if he will give the number of escaped prisoners who were unlawfully at large on 30 September and who were serving prison sentences for crimes of violence;

  (4) if he will list the escaped prisoners who were unlawfully at large on 30 September who were serving prison sentences for fraud offences;

  (5) if he will list the escaped prisoners unlawfully at large on 30 September who were serving sentences for crimes involving drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Figures in relation to adult prisoners who escaped from within a closed prison between 1 January 1981 and 30 September 1988, or who absconded from within an open prison between the same dates, and who were recorded as being unlawfully at large on 30 September 1988, were given in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 15 November at column 550. It would not be right to publish the details requested, but if the hon. Member has a particular reason for requiring more information about incidents to which the previous reply referred, he may wish to write to me.

  Extraditions (South Africa)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to secure the extradition of Colonel Henrik Botha, Stephanus De Jager, William Meteler Kamp and Jacobus La Gramse from South Africa.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom has no extradition treaty with South Africa, and therefore no means of securing the return of these men.

  Vigilante Groups
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards police co-operation with vigilante groups in areas where there is a shortage of police on the beat.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 November 1988]: At the end of August, police strength stood at 124,426, an increase of 12,933 since 1979. My right hon. Friend recently announced that police establishments would be increased by a further 1,100 posts in 1989–90. These increases, together with the civilianisation programmes which all forces are pursuing, mean that the number of police officers available for beat duties has been substantially increased since 1979.

  The ultimate responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the police. We welcome the growing support of members of the public to local crime prevention initiatives, such as neighbourhood watch or the special constabulary, but groups which seek to take over the role of the police, for example by patrolling the streets, are not acceptable.

  Motorways (Police Control)
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to a centralised police control of motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 9 December 1988]: We have no plans at present to centralise control of motorway policing.

  Dogs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to disqualify from ownership of a dog, anyone who knowingly allows the animal to trespass on a railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: I understand that the courts already have powers to disqualify persons from ownership of domestic or captive animals where cruelty or unnecessary suffering is caused to them.

ENVIRONMENT

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made in his Department's radioactive waste research programme using the "SYVAC" computer programme; what
  725
  developments have been made with the "Time 2" environmental change simulation programme; and what progress has been made with the "VANDAL" research computer model in evaluating future corrosion of nuclear waste containers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  SYVAC was used during 1982–86 to develop the basis of the Department's approach to the risk assessment of underground disposal of solid radioactive wastes and led to the development of VANDAL. VANDAL is not used for evaluating container corrosion. TIME 2 was developed to help estimate the likely effects on disposal sites of future changes in the environment to approximately 25,000 years. It is being further developed (TIME 4) to permit consideration of periods up to approximately a million years.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in the hocus hole closure experiments conducted jointly by his Department and the BRE in support of the radioactive waste management research programme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The hocus hole closure experiments were performed in November 1986 as part of an OECD/NEA study and have been reported in "Hocus Cruise Report, OECD/NEA Seabed Working Group, edited by C. Papucci, ENEA, La Spezia (Italy), May 1988".

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what restrictions are applied to civil servants in his Department's radioactive waste division travelling to the Soviet Union on holiday.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his present estimate per tonne of the cost of the long-term disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Accurate cost estimates are not possible as high-level waste will not be disposed of for at least 50 years. An indicative estimate for vitrified high-level waste is £200,000 per tonne.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any plans to export quantities of United Kingdom—generated high level radioactive waste to countries that have commercial contracts with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Sellafield to manage and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's policy on the return of high-level radioactive waste was set down in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 May 1986 at columns 502-503.

  Seals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is held by his Department on the link between phocine distemper and the recent increase in seal deaths in the North sea and off the north and west coast of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The term phocine distemper and seal plague have been used by scientists to describe the 726
  virus which has seriously affected seal populations in the North Sea this summer. As far as United Kingdom waters are concerned, the latest information provided by the sea mammal research unit shows that a total of 2,705 dead seals in the United Kingdom had been reported to the unit since 1 August this year. Of these 189 were grey seals. This compares with total United Kingdom population estimates of 25,000 common seals and 100,000 grey seals. It is likely that a very high proportion, but not all, of the seal deaths reported are due to the virus, which has been identified as a member of the morbilli family, of a similar type to rinderpest and canine distemper. Reported seal deaths have declined in recent weeks but the virus seems likely to continue to affect seal populations into 1989. Present evidence is that grey seals appear able to resist the virus.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he possesses on research undertaken by Du Pont chemicals in the United States of America on the use of halon 121 to combat ozone layer damage from other halons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government are aware that Du Pont is investigating the use of halon 121 for discharge testing of fire fighting equipment. The use of halon 121, also known as HCFC 22, is one of several possible approaches to avoiding the use in discharge testing of the halons controlled by the Montreal protocol.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been sponsored by his Department or the Health and Safety Executive into replacements for halon 1211, halon 1301, and halon 2402, to mitigate damage from the greenhouse effect.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have sponsored no such studies. Officials keep in close touch with the steps being taken by industry to reduce use of these halons and to find suitable replacements.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been conducted by his Department on replacement options for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 113; and what information his Department has on international research on CFC 113 by the electronics industry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not conducted research into replacement options for chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) 113. The Department keeps in touch with the steps the electronics industry is taking, in the United Kingdom and internationally, both to make more efficient use of CFC 113 and to develop alternative methods of cleaning printed circuit boards, including not cleaning them at all.

  Tied Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give an estimate of the respective number of farmworkers and other employees in tied housing who at present have their rates paid by their employer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerant
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to develop a collection network and incineration plants for the safe disposal of the chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant which will be removed from refrigeration machinery during the next 10 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The EC code of good practice on reducing emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 11 and 12 in commercial and industrial refrigeration and air-conditioning applications, published in 1984 and currently being updated, includes advice on recovery, re-use and disposal of refrigerants. Both United Kingdom manufacturers of CFCs offer a reprocessing service to their customers.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to include in government contracts for the servicing and replacement of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, a provision for the safe disposal of used or contaminated chlorofluorocarbon.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Government Departments have been asked to review their policies, specifications and practices with a view to promoting the objective of reducing use of chloroflurocarbons and halons to the maximum possible extent. The Department is assessing the preliminary results of this exercise and considering what further steps may be required.

  Rimnet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 7 December on Rimnet, what is the gamma dose rate.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Gamma rays are emitted by many radioactive substances. The gamma dose rate is a measure of the quantity of gamma radiation over a fixed period.

  House of Commons Chandeliers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake investigations to discover if any of the House of Commons chandeliers survived the 1941 bombing.

  Mr. Chope
  Some chandeliers within the Palace did survive and are still hanging in various locations: but all those in the Chamber itself were destroyed.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of the distributional impact of the community charge on household finance.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today placed in the Library a note updating figures on the impact on household finances of the community charge. The new figures show that: when fully implemented 58 per cent. of households (11·1 million) will gain from the introduction of the community charge; 83 per cent. of single pensioner households and 75 per cent. of other single adult households will gain from these proposals; percentage gains in net income are largest for the lowest income households; community charges on average would be less than domestic rates in all bands up to £200 per week.
  728
  The community charge will reduce the burden on the poorest. The lowest income group will pay less for local government. On average, their rates after rebates account for 3·9 per cent. of net income, whereas the community charge accounts for 3·0 per cent. Of course there will be gainers and losers in any change but these figures show that the community charge with its rebate system cuts the direct cost of local government on the poorest (those households with less than £50 a week) by nearly 25 per cent.

  Many poorer people pay more in rates than those who are better off, even in the same local authority, because there is no necessary connection between rateable value and ability to pay. Generally, people buy their homes while they are working, when their incomes are at their highest, but remain in the home and have to continue paying the same rates when they retire with reduced incomes. So it is no surprise that 41 per cent. of households living in homes with above average rateable values have below average incomes.

  These figures demonstrate that the majority of households will in fact gain from the community charge; that the poorest households stand to gain; and that domestic rates do not reflect ability to pay.

  The revised figures take account of amendments made during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, local authorities budgetted spending levels in 1988–89, the 15 per cent. community charge rebate taper announced on 14 April and incorporate the uprating of social security benefits announced for 1989–90.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he can estimate the average community charge in 1990 for(a) all adults and (b) income support claimants.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have made no estimates of future community charges. Illustrative figures were published on 23 June showing what the community charge would have been in each area had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the president of the Football League to discuss the football club membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 14 December 1988.

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes in the laws governing clay pigeon shooting.

  Mr. Chope
  The Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 allows land to be used for clay pigeon shooting for up to 14 days in any calendar year without planning permission. My Department is issuing this week a consultation paper about whether the 1988 Order should be amended to revert to the 28 days maximum allowed by the previous, 1977 order.
  729
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those organisations he is proposing to consult with regard to the provisions of the General Development Order 1988 concerning clay pigeon shooting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I propose to consult 150 organisations, including the Sports Council, The Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, other shooting bodies, amenity and environmental groups, and the local authority associations. I will place a copy of the consultation paper, and a full list of consultees, in the Library of the House.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update table 5A of the Cabinet Office review of research and development for 1988 in the light of announcements made subsequent to publication of the 1988 review.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Table 5A is produced from detailed analysis of research programme expenditure and plans by the Department, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Sports Council. This analysis is now taking place as part of the Cabinet Office review of research and development for 1989 and will not be complete for some time.

  30-year Rule
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate a review of all statements, made to the House by Ministers of his Department or of predecessor Departments having responsibility for environmental protection, that may require revision in the light of official information made public under the 30-year rule on 1 January 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Private Tenancies
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what will be the effects of the arrangements for new private tenancies on families currently on local authority waiting lists; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what will be the effects of the arrangements for new private tenancies on families currently in bed and breakfast accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The new assured tenancy scheme should increase the supply of privately rented accommodation and therefore provide greater choice for families currently on local authority waiting lists or living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit families who are currently in bed and breakfast hostel accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Council Properties
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the percentage of existing council-owned residential properties which should remain in such ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government take no view on such percentages. Our policy is to promote variety of tenure, and wherever possible to give tenants an opportunity to choose for themselves.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from the international fund for animal welfare.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received cards from members of the public responding to an appeal by the international fund for animal welfare to express concern about the marine environment on an international basis. We recognise that many people are genuinely concerned about the health of our seas and the marine life that they support. Organisations such as IFAW can also play a valuable role in supporting on a voluntary basis conservation and research work on marine species such as seals. That is why I met it today to discuss their campaign.

  As the recent seal virus has shown, it is simplistic and wrong to imagine that every change in the marine environment including the death or decline of a particular species is brought about by the impact of human activities, whether through the discharge of wastes or otherwise.

  The Government are strongly committed to protecting and improving the quality of the marine environment and where there are good grounds for concern, scientifically supported, we have been ready to act. The precautionary measures, adopted at the North sea conference hosted in London last year by my right hon. Friend, to reduce inputs of dangerous substances to rivers and estuaries, and to phase out dumping and incineration of industrial waste at sea are illustrations of this. On 31 October my hon. Friend announced additional protection measures for seals and on 31 December new restrictions will come into force on the dumping of plastic garbage including nets from ships, one of the issues on which IFAW have campaigned strongly.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the consultation paper on the categories of works to be scheduled for control under proposals for changes to industrial air pollution legislation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today published a consultation paper which lists those works which we propose should be subject to control by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate and by local authorities under legislation to amend the air pollution control system. Under proposals for a cross-media approach to pollution control, the works listed for authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution would come under the integrated pollution control system.

  The paper largely discharges the commitment to further public consultation that was made in the consultation

  731
  papers on air pollution control and integrated pollution control issued (respectively) in December 1986 and in July of this year. A final consultation paper on charging will be issued in the early part of next year.

  Today's consultation paper is accompanied by a paper containing a summary of the responses to the consultation paper issued in 1986, a note on our decision now to favour enforcement of air pollution controls by means of binding authorisations, as recommended by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, and two specimen authorisations.

  Rate support grant payable under latest supplementary report and 1988–89 settlement report

  (£m at constant 1988–89 prices)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Barnsley

  71·06

  65·01

  64·40

  60·72

  56·12

  63·1

  64·05

  60·96

  Birmingham

  253·29

  228·60

  235·87

  224·07

  225·10

  200·50

  207·72

  Blackburn

  13·45

  12·04

  12·82

  12·35

  11·79

  12·66

  11·36

  10·55

  Bolton

  76·22

  73·50

  72·92

  70·57

  69·02

  76·73

  78·23

  76·40

  Bradford

  149·35

  143·32

  146·94

  139·82

  139·09

  146·70

  150·39

  155·81

  Bristol

  25·21

  21·08

  20·31

  19·51

  17·94

  18·75

  17·11

  16·19

  Burnley

  7·79

  6·80

  7·01

  6·68

  5·69

  5·79

  5·49

  5·35

  Coventry

  86·39

  82·53

  79·00

  75·17

  66·71

  68·13

  69·05

  69·39

  Derby

  10·02

  11·13

  10·77

  10·31

  9·48

  10·98

  10·20

  9·60

  Doncaster

  86·43

  78·58

  78·00

  74·46

  70·64

  77·76

  78·34

  76·36

  Dudley

  51·13

  47·47

  49·78

  48·78

  43·53

  53·57

  44·36

  41·17

  Gateshead

  63·33

  57·14

  55·98

  54·54

  51·24

  57·49

  56·40

  55·06

  Halton

  6·33

  5·53

  5·25

  4·98

  4·42

  4·71

  4·02

  4·03

  Hartlepool

  6·16

  5·60

  6·05

  5·85

  5·47

  5·28

  4·56

  4·57

  Kingston upon Hull

  19·84

  20·30

  19·92

  18·99

  18·55

  22·08

  19·79

  21·33

  Kirklees

  113·65

  114·02

  114·45

  111·64

  107·36

  118·93

  125·12

  125·99

  Knowsley

  59·30

  53·53

  51·04

  49·82

  45·51

  48·22

  48·03

  48·11

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  7·66

  6·26

  6·27

  5·82

  5·08

  5·08

  4·73

  2·83

  Leeds

  176·06

  158·43

  158·63

  152·29

  136·84

  151·14

  150·97

  146·09

  Leicester

  18·25

  15·21

  18·74

  16·68

  17·57

  16·12

  18·65

  18·16

  Liverpool

  172·80

  156·91

  151·82

  146·02

  143·51

  148·66

  144·47

  150·03

  Manchester

  165·09

  132·82

  126·10

  120·04

  112·29

  110·98

  93·11

  110·33

  Middlesbrough

  14·72

  12·85

  12·06

  12·38

  11·60

  12·98

  12·40

  13·96

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  70·82

  51·71

  54·06

  50·46

  46·85

  23·86

  45·27

  55·16

  North Tyneside

  58·11

  51·87

  50·30

  50·81

  47·18

  44·18

  47·25

  47·53

  Nottingham

  16·06

  15·92

  16·63

  16·04

  17·62

  19·36

  16·84

  16·61

  Oldham

  74·76

  68·86

  68·99

  66·36

  64·61

  70·38

  73·59

  73·71

  Plymouth

  13·98

  13·18

  12·54

  12·21

  11·62

  14·36

  13·31

  13·71

  Preston

  7·42

  7·23

  7·86

  7·54

  6·93

  7·05

  6·59

  6·29

  Rochdale

  69·28

  66·58

  66·74

  63·74

  60·64

  64·11

  63·67

  63·84

  Rotherham

  79·47

  72·68

  71·37

  68·62

  64·07

  72·10

  72·82

  71·43

  St. Helens

  50·62

  47·35

  48·07

  46·66

  42·83

  46·75

  48·10

  46·13

  Salford

  85·20

  75·64

  74·41

  65·64

  61·97

  63·06

  63·22

  59·98

  Sandwell

  58·03

  62·04

  67·34

  66·80

  57·96

  77·31

  65·81

  54·60

  Sefton

  73·03

  66·74

  63·12

  59·50

  56·92

  68·94

  65·15

  63·86

  Sheffield

  136·48

  122·73

  119·70

  124·38

  113·44

  98·12

  121·66

  115·72

  South Tyneside

  58·92

  53·10

  51·02

  48·45

  45·85

  50·19

  51·16

  51·08

  Stockton-on-Tees

  7·50

  6·59

  6·78

  6·44

  4·68

  5·67

  5·12

  4·55

  Sunderland

  91·46

  86·61

  83·62

  79·91

  77·46

  79·98

  84·75

  86·95

  Walsall

  59·58

  52·62

  60·14

  59·36

  52·78

  56·89

  57·58

  49·66

  Wigan

  90·28

  86·49

  78·06

  77·46

  73·30

  75·83

  79·92

  77·08

  Wirral

  86·10

  79·80

  79·57

  75·80

  72·23

  81·89

  78·05

  76·50

  Wolverhampton

  63·88

  61·20

  61·22

  59·04

  54·56

  70·79

  56·70

  53·52

  Wrekin

  7·35

  6·71

  6·56

  5·93

  5·06

  4·65

  4·01

  3·93

  Brent

  72·36

  76·62

  65·76

  77·01

  60·08

  57·69

  76·38

  74·32

  Greenwich

  41·03

  38·52

  35·04

  38·98

  40·81

  54·07

  56·46

  50·66

  Hackney

  58·56

  56·24

  52·41

  58·92

  53·92

  84·35

  73·19

  72·74

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  43·78

  43·01

  44·21

  42·18

  43·35

  56·39

  55·20

  51·35

  Haringey

  80·99

  80·73

  72·94

  69·07

  73·49

  57·06

  75·98

  84·67

  Islington

  35·61

  37·80

  43·17

  4·72

  28·93

  51·38

  60·51

  52·54

  Kensington and Chelsea

  16·23

  22·74

  25·77

  22·85

  15·37

  42·61

  36·68

  36·74

  Lambeth

  70·08

  73·26

  65·31

  59·91

  58·59

  57·31

  82·47

  89·95

  Lewisham

  63·09

  61·76

  59·56

  55·70

  58·31

  74·01

  68·72

  69·22

  Newham

  84·44

  95·59

  76·56

  91·24

  90·40

  80·82

  87·60

  98·41

  Southwark

  57·80

  49·17

  42·33

  18·96

  48·67

  74·24

  63·12

  68·74

  Tower Hamlets

  36·93

  33·73

  31·59

  28·83

  24·76

  66·91

  66·74

  60·49

  Wandsworth

  62·94

  59·99

  64·11

  60·95

  61·62

  80·54

  75·03

  73·49

  732
  Copies of both papers are being sent to local authority and industrial trade associations, environmental organisations and others with an interest, and are available in the Library of the House.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each authority currently designated with partnership or programme status, for each year from 1981–82 to 1988–89, at constant prices(a) the amount of rate support grant received and (b) total grants received under the urban programme.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The information is as follows:
  733

  Urban Programme Grant Paid

  (£ million at constant 1988–89 prices)

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  11988–89

  Barnsley

  0·32

  0·27

  0·38

  0·37

  0·23

  0·34

  10·45

  0·64

  Birmingham

  8·98

  10·30

  13·05

  11·09

  9·94

  11·19

  13·32

  10·91

  Blackburn

  0·06

  0·09

  0·26

  0·61

  0·92

  0·89

  1·24

  1·14

  Bolton

  1·58

  1·61

  2·18

  1·95

  1·62

  1·68

  12·10

  1·74

  Bradford

  2·52

  2·94

  3·71

  3·78

  3·47

  3·36

  3·66

  3·15

  Bristol

  0·20

  0·28

  0·38

  0·45

  0·47

  0·47

  10·12

  0·12

  Burnley

  0·13

  0·13

  0·26

  0·24

  0·11

  0·22

  10·27

  0·17

  Coventry

  1·10

  0·94

  0·90

  1·95

  1·85

  1·68

  1·61

  1·21

  Derby

  0·28

  0·29

  0·31

  0·31

  0·29

  0·39

  0·46

  0·09

  Doncaster

  0·63

  0·54

  0·77

  0·85

  0·46

  0·56

  0·63

  0·57

  Dudley

  0·26

  0·39

  0·58

  1·47

  1·48

  1·21

  10·41

  0·29

  Gateshead

  3·31

  3·75

  3·97

  4·63

  4·28

  4·47

  5·54

  4·35

  Halton

  0·17

  0·10

  0·36

  0·43

  0·61

  0·65

  0·71

  0·30

  Hartlepool

  0·32

  0·40

  0·38

  0·49

  0·46

  0·45

  0·74

  0·52

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  0·95

  1·34

  1·66

  2·19

  2·31

  2·24

  12·97

  2·52

  Kirklees

  0·95

  0·97

  1·02

  0·95

  0·87

  0·76

  0·69

  0·43

  Knowsley

  0·79

  0·94

  1·28

  1·95

  1·62

  1·68

  2·81

  1·97

  Langbaurgh

  0·03

  0·03

  0·13

  0·12

  0·11

  0·11

  10·24

  0·45

  Leeds

  3·31

  3·08

  3·46

  3·90

  4·04

  3·36

  4·38

  2·94

  Leicester City

  1·58

  2·81

  3·07

  2·68

  2·08

  2·34

  2·72

  1·76

  Liverpool

  13·55

  15·92

  18·94

  20·47

  20·11

  20·13

  17·73

  11·64

  Manchester

  6·77

  6·82

  7·42

  7·07

  7·05

  8·85

  110·38

  8·65

  Middlesbrough

  1·10

  1·34

  1·66

  1·95

  1·85

  1·68

  12·11

  1·65

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3·31

  3·21

  4·48

  5·48

  9·82

  5·59

  7·73

  4·94

  North Tyneside

  1·10

  1·07

  1·41

  2·07

  1·27

  1·68

  1·85

  0·49

  Nottingham City

  0·63

  1·20

  1·92

  2·44

  3·12

  2·80

  12·89

  2·94

  Oldham

  1·58

  1·74

  2·18

  1·58

  2·08

  1·68

  13·54

  2·13

  Plymouth

  0·01

  0·02

  0·03

  0·02

  0·03

  0·05

  0·22

  0·28

  Preston

  0·08

  0·17

  0·18

  0·17

  0·15

  0·18

  0·28

  0·28

  Rochdale

  1·26

  1·07

  1·28

  1·58

  1·50

  1·68

  11·79

  1·59

  Rotherham

  0·47

  0·54

  0·51

  0·61

  0·46

  1·68

  0·75

  0·73

  St. Helens

  0·47

  0·67

  0·89

  0·73

  0·11

  1·68

  10·15

  —

  Salford

  3·78

  3·61

  4·10

  3·53

  3·81

  3·36

  13·44

  4·25

  Sandwell

  0·95

  1·07

  1·54

  1·83

  1·96

  1·68

  2·42

  2·41

  Sefton

  0·47

  0·54

  0·89

  0·97

  0·92

  0·89

  0·81

  0·83

  Sheffield

  4·25

  2·54

  2·56

  3·69

  4·60

  4·08

  4·80

  1·84

  South Tyneside

  1·73

  1·74

  1·79

  1·95

  2·20

  2·24

  2·77

  2·21

  Stockton

  0·10

  0·15

  0·19

  0·22

  0·22

  0·21

  0·31

  —

  Sunderland

  2·36

  2·14

  2·30

  1·58

  0·92

  1·68

  3·69

  2·69

  Walsall

  1·26

  1·07

  1·15

  1·10

  1·04

  1·00

  10·35

  0·09

  Wigan

  0·47

  0·67

  0·64

  0·73

  0·58

  0·56

  0·59

  0·62

  Wirral

  1·10

  1·61

  2·30

  2·92

  2·66

  2·24

  12·48

  1·10

  Wolverhampton

  2·05

  1·87

  2·05

  2·31

  2·31

  2·24

  12·03

  2·24

  Wrekin

  0·06

  0·12

  0·23

  0·24

  0·27

  0·30

  0·25

  0·17

  Brent

  2·21

  1·61

  2·18

  2·07

  1·39

  0·67

  0·48

  —

  Greenwich

  2·05

  3·08

  2·30

  2·68

  0·81

  2·24

  2·47

  1·42

  Hackney

  3·62

  4·42

  5·89

  5·48

  5·66

  5·59

  5·20

  1·36

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  2·68

  2·81

  3·33

  3·17

  2·77

  2·80

  11·87

  1·27

  Haringey

  1·73

  1·61

  1·79

  1·71

  1·39

  1·45

  0·65

  0·17

  Islington

  6·46

  6·69

  5·50

  9·72

  9·11

  5·99

  15·76

  0·57

  Kensington/Chelsea

  1·11

  0·94

  0·94

  0·99

  0·97

  0·95

  10·46

  0·12

  Lambeth

  5·83

  5·62

  6·27

  5·73

  5·78

  5·59

  15·48

  2·62

  Lewisham

  2·05

  2·01

  1·92

  0·61

  0·58

  1·12

  10·85

  0·40

  Newham

  2·52

  2·01

  2·05

  1·71

  1·04

  1·68

  1·09

  0·82

  Southwark

  4·88

  5·08

  3·20

  2·20

  3·78

  3·91

  12·10

  2·43

  Tower Hamlets

  2·68

  2·54

  3·58

  4·48

  3·98

  5·04

  14·33

  0·52

  Wandsworth

  1·42

  1·34

  1·79

  1·95

  4·39

  3·91

  4·28

  1·38

  TOTALS

  115·62

  121·86

  139·49

  148·15

  146·91

  147·15

  153·45

  102·12

  1Part year.

  Press Gallery (Leak)
  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the roof leaking in the Press Gallery, off Press Gallery Library, Star Court extension, first reported in April, will be repaired.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 5 December 1988]: The flat roof which is leaking supports a two-storey Portakabin. This severely restricts access to the roof structure and it has not yet been possible to establish precisely where the water is entering. Further repairs were undertaken earlier in December but it will not be possible to judge their effect
  734
  until they have stood the test of heavy rain. If this latest work proves to have been unsuccessful it may eventually prove necessary to remove the Portakabins. If so, it would be discussed with the House authorities.

  Sports Centres
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants are available to local authorities to enable them to establish sports centres if they so wish; and if he will make a statement.
  735
  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council provides grants towards the provision of sports centres by local authorities; as does the Department under the urban programme. I am delighted that the number of sports halls 736
  in England has risen from 770 in 1981 to 1,117 now; participation in sport and recreation has risen from 17 million in 1977 to 23 million now.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

European Air Traffic Control
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on air matters discussed at the meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council held on 8th–9th December with particular reference to proposals tabled by the Commission on air traffic control and its amendment to the 1983 directive on the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, there was some discussion of air traffic control issues but the Commission did not, in the event, table its proposals. Inter-regional air services were not on the agenda and were not discussed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, replies to Questions dealing with the Commission and air services appear to be getting worse and more disappointing. Even the Minister had hoped that the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement would be discussed. Can he tell the House what has happened to the previous interest shown by the Commission in air matters? As regards the reply to today's Question, can we be informed about the discussion which took place in respect of the air traffic control? Does it mean that in the future this area will be controlled mainly by Eurocontrol and the ECAC, with the Commission in the background, so that all European states can be included?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that the proposals in respect of the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement are still under consideration at official level.
The subject of air traffic control was discussed. Those discussions centred on whether a Community-wide approach was appropriate for dealing with air congestion. It was agreed that such an approach should not duplicate the work of other bodies such as ECAC and Eurocontrol.
I remain to be convinced that Commission involvement is necessary. It would be better for ICAO and Eurocontrol to remain in the lead. The problem of congestion extends well beyond the 12 EC member states. We are awaiting from the Commission the proposals for the second stage of liberalisation and we expect to receive them next November. I believe that the Commission's priority should lie in developing those proposals rather than possibly duplicating scarce resources by copying what Eurocontrol ought to be doing.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have congratulated the Minister on his efforts to establish and develop Eurocontrol. Is he aware of the serious statement reported on the radio this morning in respect of the report of the Air Transport Users' Committee which is not yet in our Printed Paper Office but which we await with interest? It expresses serious concern about the problems not only of airport congestion but also of air space congestion. Are we not in grave danger of confusing liberalisation with deregulation and the problems that that would bring forward? Is there a lack of urgency in other countries to follow Eurocontrol which the Minister is trying to encourage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have heard of the Air Transport Users' Committee report but I have not yet received my copy. However, I saw members of the committee yesterday evening. We share some of their concerns about the present air traffic control situation. During previous Question Times I have given detailed information about what is happening.
We believe that liberalisation should go ahead. We do not believe that the strict regulation now in place is the best way to deal with the situation. Any problems with air traffic control must be dealt with, but that does not mean to say that liberalisation should not go ahead.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am glad about the prominence being given to the report of the AUC, but I should like to ask the Minister about an issue which concerns him. Has any date been fixed for a future meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe? Can he also help me about a matter which 1 can never sort out? At their meetings can the transport Ministers raise matters concerning aviation in general? Or can they do so only if the Commission is kind enough to place an item on the agenda?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the dates proposed for the new Spanish presidency provide that there will be an informal council on 13th February and formal councils on 14th March and 5th June, 1989.
Ministers can press the presidency for items to be discussed at council meetings when the agenda is being drawn, but there is no obligation on the presidency to agree. Ministers can make a statement at council meetings under "any other business", normally giving the presidency advance notice as a matter of courtesy. However, such statements are not usually discussed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can one then take it that the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to discussion the Inter-regional Air Services Agreement at its last meeting, or was the matter not raised beforehand?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there are still a number of oustanding issues in respect of the Interregional Air Services Agreement. In general they concern the extent of liberalisation appropriate on

1021
inter-regional routes at this stage in the 1992 process. There is also a need for us to resolve bilaterally with Spain the conditions under which the amendments should apply to Gibraltar. It appears that the proposals are not yet sufficiently advanced to be tabled by the Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I gather that the short answer is, no.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable delays experienced by those who constantly use Heathrow Airport? What will the Minister do about the flying teams of reindeer which may descend on him at this time of year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although the question strays well away from that on the Order Paper, I hope that there will be no problems in respect of my noble friend's latter point.

Gibraltar Airport
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is now the position with respect to the proposal of Spanish participation in the operation of Gibraltar Airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the joint declaration of 2nd December 1987, which provided for co-operation over the use of Gibraltar Airport, will not come into force until the Gibraltar House of Assembly amends Gibraltar's existing customs and immigration legislation. The Spanish Government then have up to one year to build a new terminal before new arrangements come into force. We believe it is very much in Gibraltar's interests to implement the joint declaration, but have made clear that we shall not attempt to force them to do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Is she aware of the fact that many people believe that the prolonged difficulties which have arisen owe a good deal to the action of Her Majesty's Government in not associating the Government of Gibraltar in the negotiations with Spain but presenting them with a fait accompli? Will the Government try to do better next time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the British Government have kept the matter constantly under review with the relevant people in Gibraltar. Meetings have recently taken place and there will be further discussions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that her Answer means that the situation remains the same as that outlined in the Written Answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on 11th April 1988? He stated that
1022
Gibraltar will remain excluded from the air transport liberalisation measures adopted by the European Community on 14th December 1987, until they reach an agreement. Does that remain the position?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does that not therefore mean that the Gibraltar Government are failing to implement the Government's policy of becoming more self-supporting by passing over the benefits which would accrue to them from that arrangement?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are hoping that by encouraging the Gibraltar Government to consider this in addition to other benefits which we believe the agreement will bring to the people of Gibraltar, they will see their way to joining in.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when this matter was last raised in the House it was confirmed by the noble Baroness that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar was to have discussions with her right honourable and learned friend last October. Can she say whether those talks took place, whether this subject was raised and what were the reactions of the Chief Minister to the proposals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the meeting did take place and this topic arose. Other meetings have taken place and further meetings are due to take place on a regular basis to discuss general matters. I am not at liberty to give details of the discussions which took place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government of Gibraltar in the person of the Chief Minister are objecting to this proposal and are making it difficult for it to go through? Does she not agree that it is unlikely that the Assembly will ratify the agreement unless the Government and the Chief Minister are in favour of it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that we can all understand some of the anxieties of the people of Gibraltar but we are trying to convince them of the benefit that this agreement can bring to them while making it absolutely clear that there have been no concessions on sovereignty and that the airport will remain under British control. We hope and trust that they will come round.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend take a little further her original Answer to me and indicate that in the event of future negotiations with Spain, which may well be necessary, the Government of Gibraltar will be associated with them at the time and will not simply be given the results afterwards on a take it or leave it basis?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hesitated in responding to my noble friend's first supplementary question. I believe that a representative of Gibraltar was present during the previous discussions and I see no reason why that should not continue.

Family Credit and Child Benefit
3.12 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the increase in family credit announced in the Autumn Statement will adequately compensate families on low pay for the lack of an increase in child benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): Yes, my Lords. An RPI uprating of child benefit would have meant an extra 45p per child. Instead, as I explained to the House on Tuesday, we have more than compensated for the standstill in child benefit by increasing family credit by an extra 95p per child over and above the uprating for prices.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. On Tuesday he made quite clear that the take-up of family credit was not as high as the Government would like it to be. Does he not agree that as well as improving the form, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, clearly pointed out was poorly drafted, there is also a need to overcome the concept that while child benefit is paid to the mother for the children in all families, with no discrimination, family credit tends to put a stigma on the poor and is really only a subsidy to employers for paying low wages?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. I do not agree that family credit is a stigma on the poor and a subsidy for employers paying low wages. There are and always have been low paid jobs in the economy and it is right that the state should encourage employment in those areas by paying extra state benefits.
As regards take-up, as I said on Tuesday, that is increasing. Indeed, successful claims for November exceed those for April and May put together. We believe that the underlying caseload is now approaching 300,000, which indicates a take-up rate considerably above some figures which are being floated about.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the plight of the very poor families should be the centre of attention of any compassionate, civilised government and that there seems to be a stigma involved in the Government's proposals? Is he not aware that many experts in our universities and those who have made a close study of the social services are somewhat concerned at the Government's proposals? Is it not possible for the Government to examine those concerns and then examine their own proposals?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are statutorily bound to examine the levels once a year in connection with the uprating statement, as noble Lords will be well aware. Next April's uprating will target help to those most in need. The majority of any child benefit uprating will go to better off families, including the wealthiest. Among families who stand to gain from
1024
an increase in child benefit, 70 per cent. goes to those with above average earnings.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord put a percentage figure on the take-up of family credit, and in so far as there is a shortfall can he say what steps the Government are taking to remedy that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is currently a Better Off In Work campaign being conducted through the Department of Employment, and a major exercise began at the end of last month which will run until Christmas boosted by advertising on local radio and taking other local initiatives. Everyone who collects child benefit from the post office will receive a leaflet about family credit.
For the future, we plan to have a further major advertising campaign including advertisements on television around the time of the next uprating. We shall continue to publicise family credit and especially we shall make clear the levels of income at which it can be paid. As regards the current position, the amount of money being paid out in child benefit is currently very close to the estimate we made some 18 months ago.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it not true that family credit is paid to the man, whereas an enormous advantage of child benefit is that it is the woman who receives it? Unless she receives it, quite a lot of the money will never go to help the children.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, families can elect who receives the family credit and I am advised that in most cases it goes direct to the mother, as does child benefit.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is in the cases where it most needs to go to the mother that it is elected that it should go to the father?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence at all for that statement.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that increases in family credit, income support and housing benefit add up to extra expenditure of £70 million? The failure to increase child benefit produced a saving of £203 million. Can he explain why only one-third of the savings from the failure to increase child benefit was directed to the poorest families?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The net annual saving from not uprating child benefit will be around £200 million, but we are making available an extra £70 million to the neediest families over and above the £135 million which the normal uprating of income related child benefit allowances will cost.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement he made that there will always be low wages is reminiscent of the phrase that the poor

1025
will always be with us? Can I take it that the tacit approval which he gave to the continuation of low wages is government policy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. It was a recognition of need.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, as it seems that the Government are saving £203 million through their treatment of child benefit but have allocated only just over £70 million to uprate the new benefits, and as only about one-third of the families entitled to family credit are receiving it due to the Government's poor marksmanship and targeting, can the Minister tell the House what is happening to the cash balance which the Government are saving by these new arrangements? Surely that money belongs to the children of this country. What is he doing with it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the children of this country, especially the poorer children, are benefiting to a considerable degree, as I have made clear in previous answers. As regards the social security budget, that will increase by £2 billion in the next financial year.

Building Industry: Training
3.20 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their future plans for the training of skilled operatives in the building industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have always believed that the primary responsibility for training skilled operatives in the building industry rests with employers. The Government will continue to provide support for training through their youth and adult training programmes and by establishing the right framework at local industry and national levels to produce a more flexible, adaptable and highly skilled workforce.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply but is the Minister aware that, following the issue of the recent Government White Paper on training, views have been forcefully expressed by some of the major builders and the major trade union in the building industry, UCATT, that the present arrangements ought to be continued? They have served the industry well. If there is any desire to consider a change I ask the Minister to give an undertaking that there will be full consultation with everyone concerned in the building industry in order to arrive at the right conclusions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is the firm intention of Ministers to have a meeting with the chairman of the board shortly after Christmas. The purpose of that meeting will be to invite the chairman to draw up plans, including a timetable, for moving his board away from its reliance on a statutory levy and becoming an independent non-statutory body.
1026
That, of course, is one of the government policies referred to in the recent White Paper.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Building Trade Employers always had, I think—in fact, most people think—one of the finest training schemes possible? Can the Minister assure me that it will not be interfered with in any way and, in fact, will be improved upon?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the objective of any government policy in this or any other area is to improve on the training situation in any particular industry. I am confident that the discussions will result in an improvement in skill training in the construction industry.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what "an operative" means?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, without a dictionary in front of me I suggest it probably means one who operates.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the accident rate in the construction industry is still unacceptably high? Last year more than 17 additional deaths occurred. Does not the Minister agree that that is probably attributable to the use of unskilled and untrained lump labour in the industry? Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House what arrangements are being made for safety training in the industry and for an improvement in the safety inspectorate?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness is right. There is absolutely no reason to be complacent about the number of accidents in the building industry. The care taken within the youth training scheme to train in accident avoidance has been increased substantially in the past year or so. I have no information on the other point raised by the noble Baroness and will have to write to her.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the trade unions are of the opinion that a concerted assault on the growing shortage of housing in Great Britain would resolve the problem? That would assist the employers and the trade unions to carry out many of the schemes that they have in mind but have not yet been able to carry out because they are not receiving the orders necessary, particularly in regard to providing more homes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am confused by that question. At present the construction industry is booming and has been for some considerable time. This Question refers particularly to skill shortages in the building industry. Any arrangements for the future provision of training will have to take the noble Lord's point into account.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to look at the possibility of increasing the number of inspectors in view of the present accident rate in the industry?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly pass that point on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under directives of the EC due to come into force in 1990 there may be a massive penetration in our building industry by our partners in the EC? If that takes place will the Government ensure that it does not happen at the expense of training our own young people in skills in the industry which they will need to rely on in the future?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not immediately aware of the EC document to which the noble Lord refers. Many of your Lordships will have seen an article in The Sunday Times last Sunday about recruitment of foreign workers to deal with the skill shortages in the construction industry, which has been apparent for some time and has recently increased. However, I should make the point that the mobility of construction workers has always been an important feature of the industry and will no doubt increase with the advent of the single market in 1992. Employers must ensure that they invest in training to produce workers with the right skills at the right time and, I should add, at the right locations.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the old-fashioned apprenticeships in the construction industry have fallen by the wayside and why the construction industry now expects the Government to train their employees for them?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not the Government who are training the employees but the construction industry training board. However, I agree with those detractors of apprenticeships that the existence of only one form of training to one level of competence is most certainly outdated. The time is overdue for a flexible modular system of training which will cover training to an advanced craft level and which will also allow employers and workforce to train and retrain to gain the skill levels appropriate to need.

Junior Hospital Doctors (Regulation of Hours) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to regulate the hours worked by junior hospital doctors. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rea.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
3.27 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

City of Glasgow District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will perhaps guess from the Short Title, the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill deals with two quite different subjects. I hope that it will be of assistance to your Lordships if I first give a brief overview of the Bill and then deal more fully with the detailed provisions.
The Bill is in two main parts. Part I paves the way for a new unified driver licensing system in Great Britain. There will be a single licensing authority and a single document showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State is also given additional powers to revoke or refuse licences on health grounds and new arrangements are made to ensure proper training of those who wish to ride motor cycles.
As your Lordships may be aware, drivers of motor cars, heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles presently require separate licences for each class of vehicle. There are nearly 31.5 million ordinary licence holders in Great Britain; about 1 million of them also hold HGV licences and another 300,000 also hold PSV licences. The familiar car licence is issued by the Secretary of State through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea. Licences to drive heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are issued through independent Traffic Commissioners in nine traffic areas. This means that there are effectively three driver licensing systems in operation each with its own legislation and special rules. Drivers seeking licences to drive HGVs or PSVs must pass a special test and meet tougher medical standards than for an ordinary licence. These additional requirements will continue under the proposed arrangements.
At present one professional driver could have two or even three separate licences dealing with different classes of vehicles. He would also be answerable to

1029
two different licensing authorities, the Secretary of State and the Traffic Commissioners. This multiplicity of licences and rules can be confusing, particularly when lorry or coach drivers take their vehicles abroad. By contrast, most of the other EC member states have a single licence showing all driving entitlement, which is updated as any changes in the entitlement occur. This makes life much easier for drivers, for licensing authorities and for enforcement agencies.
The new system introduced by the Bill will include a single licence showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State will become the sole licensing authority and all driving licences will be issued centrally from DVLC. These arrangements should offer considerable scope for streamlining the process of issuing licences and for making the system more cost-effective. This should be good news for all drivers since the costs of issuing licences are reflected in the fees charged. In addition, drivers who go abroad will have the benefit of an internationally recognised licence. This will be of particular benefit to lorry and coach drivers who will no longer have to explain in other countries the significance of their supplementary PSV or HGV licences.
The move towards a unified driver licensing system is not only desirable in itself but is also necessary to enable the UK to meet its commitments under the law of the European Community. since the 1970s efforts have been made to bring driver licensing systems in member states into line. The first step was taken in 1980 with the publication of the first directive on driver licensing which required member states to start the harmonisation process. All driving licences were required to follow an EC model, a single document showing all driving entitlement.
When the first directive was published the Commission recognised that complete harmonisation would take some time to achieve; but efforts to complete the process are now gathering momentum. A second directive is expected shortly from the Commission to put the finishing touches to the process. This is expected to fix a completion date by which the licensing systems should be in line. Although there will still be a good deal of negotiation on the second directive the provisions in this Bill facilitate any changes that may be required.
The Bill is designed to make the changeover to the unified licence as smooth as possible. Car drivers with ordinary licences will not notice any difference at all, since there is no proposal to replace their existing licences. Holders of vocational licences will generally come within the new arrangements only as their existing licences come up for renewal. This should ensure an orderly transfer to the new system.
Part I of the Bill also introduces compulsory training for all new riders of motorcycles and mopeds. These vehicles make up less than 2 per cent. of road traffic, but a seventh of all road deaths and a fifth of all serious injuries are to motorcyclists. Although the accident rate is improving, motorcyclists remain one of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Many of those killed and injured are still in their teens, and lack the skill and experience of older riders.
1030
At the moment there is no requirement for motorcyclists to take any training at all. Learners can ride for two years on a provisional licence. If they wish to carry on riding they must pass both parts of the motorcycle test. In practice, many riders take neither training nor tests. They simply give up riding after two years or sooner, if they have a serious accident.
The Government announced in February this year their intention to introduce compulsory basic training for all new learner riders. This will replace the present Part I motorcycle test. The proposal has been widely welcomed, not only by road safety organisations and the police, but also by motorcycle manufacturers and dealers; by organisations representing training centres; and by motorcyclists themselves.
The second part of the Bill deals with driver information systems. In very broad terms, these are electronic systems for giving drivers route guidance, and warnings about current traffic conditions. Conventional radio broadcasts are of course an existing type of information to drivers, but the Bill does not deal with them. It is concerned principally with the more advanced systems (some of which are only now being developed) which require special equipment in vehicles to give individual drivers precise information about the particular areas in which they are driving.
The best known system is called Autoguide. This gives drivers recommended routes to their destination using an electronic display fitted to the dashboard of their vehicles. The advice is based on current information about changing traffic conditions ahead, including roadworks, accidents and congestion. Small roadside beacons transmit the information to the vehicle. I know that several of your Lordships have had an introduction to Autoguide through the demonstration scheme which the Department of Transport is currently running in the Westminster area. The setting up of this scheme was supported by the House's Select Committee on Science and Technology in their report last year on innovation in surface transport. Perhaps I could take this opportunity of inviting others who would like to see the demonstration to let me know.
Autoguide was conceived in the UK by the Government's Transport and Road Research Laboratory. TRRL have estimated that an Autoguide system throughout London could help drivers to reduce their average journey times by around 10 per cent. and reduce mileage by around 6 per cent. In short, the system has the potential to make better use of existing roads and to cut congestion.
The Government's view is that the success of Autoguide depends on commercial development and marketing and that the system should therefore be promoted by the private sector. A number of potential private sector operators responded enthusiastically to a consultation document which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport issued last April. As a result, the Government hope shortly to invite detailed proposals for a pilot Autoguide scheme in London, capable of

1031
being upgraded to a fully commercial London system. Similar schemes might then follow in other parts of the country.
The potential market for Autoguide extends beyond this country. An experimental Autoguidetype system is already operating in West Berlin. The Department of Transport has co-operated in drawing up a draft Anglo-German standard for an important part of the Autoguide technology, and co-operation with other member states on a European standard is planned. In time it might become possible to drive from Edinburgh to Paris, or from London to Rome, using the same route guidance equipment all the way.
Implementation of Autoguide will depend on Parliament's approval of the Bill now before your Lordships. In broad terms, legislation is necessary for two reasons. First, an Autoguide operator needs powers to install the roadside beacons and certain other apparatus. Much of the necessary infrastructure will, under established government policy, be installed only by one of the existing public telecommunications operators; that is, by British Telecom or Mercury. But some streetworks, particularly those near to junctions, will fall to the Autoguide operator himself and the Bill will give him the necessary powers to do the work.
The second reason for legislating is to ensure that the introduction of Autoguide and other systems like it can be carefully monitored and evaluated. TRRL's research suggests that Autoguide will produce major benefits. However, the best way of establishing accurately how a full commercial system would work is by mounting a large-scale pilot scheme, as we have proposed. That will allow the Government and the operator to examine in detail how a full system might affect, for example, current traffic management arrangements. It would allow us to judge, for example, whether the licence for a full system would need to restrict Autoguide traffic to main roads or whether such conditions would be unnecessary. The Bill sets out in some detail the particular provisions which licences might contain.
Although I have referred mainly to Autoguide in discussing Part II of the Bill, I must emphasise that the legislation is not concerned exclusively with that system. Other types of driver information systems may well be developed. It is not the Government's policy to protect Autoguide. On the contrary, we welcome the prospect of a variety of competing driver information systems, with different companies forging ahead with this exciting new technology and striving to offer individual motorists and fleet operators the best possible information and guidance. The Bill is designed to ensure that drivers are not denied the benefits of this technology, while at the same time providing for proper safeguards in essential areas such as road safety and traffic management.
That gives a brief overview of the Bill and I shall now go into more detail. Clause 1 carries out the primary purpose of Part I. It repeals Part IV of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Section 22 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, which require special driving licences for the driving of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles respectively. The
1032
clause also allows drivers with existing vocational licences to continue to use them until they expire, are revoked or surrendered.
Clause 1 also gives effect to the provision in Schedule 1 which transfers the present functions of the Traffic Commissioners to the Secretary of State. He will then have responsibility for determining whether or not drivers should continue to hold their vocational licences because of misconduct. If the particular misconduct carries mandatory revocation, as prescribed in regulations, then the Secretary of State is obliged to revoke the licence.
In other cases, he may refer the question of misconduct to the local traffic commissioner, whose determination will be binding. This is much the same arrangement as at present, except that the Secretary of State becomes the licensing authority. The Traffic Commissioners already exercise the jurisdiction on matters of conduct and, except for cases requiring mandatory revocation by the Secretary of State, they will continue to do so.
Clause 2 applies the arrangements that are peculiar to the driving of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles in the new unified licensing system. These are set out in Schedule 2. The clause also sets out the duration of the vocational element of any licence issued on or after the appointed day. At present, heavy goods vehicle licences remain in force for three years and public service vehicle licences for five years. In future, licences to drive any prescribed class of goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle will generally need to be renewed every five years once drivers pass 45 years of age. For drivers of more than 65 years of age, renewal will be on an annual basis.
These arrangements will apply to both goods vehicle and passenger-carrying vehicle entitlement. This change ensures that drivers are subject to regular medical checks, since a medical report will be needed with all applications for renewal. It is essential that drivers of these large vehicles have their health checked regularly. We are only too well aware of the consequences of the driver of a lorry or bus collapsing behind the wheel in a busy road or motorway. Medical evidence suggests that most serious medical conditions arise from the mid-40s onwards. It is for that reason that we propose that licences obtained by young drivers should generally continue until their 45th birthday.
The clause also provides for the issue of short period entitlement of between one year and three years to individuals whose medical condition needs more frequent monitoring. This will undoubtedly be of benefit to some drivers who might otherwise lose their entitlement and consequently their employment.
Schedule 2 also provides that licences are not granted for large goods or passenger-carrying vehicles unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. Questions relating to conduct may be referred to the traffic commissioner, who will decide whether or not the individual should have a licence.
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 make changes to the licensing system which are designed to benefit drivers of cars as

1033
well as those of HGVs and PSVs. Clause 3 clarifies and extends the circumstances in which driving without a licence pending the grant of a licence is allowed. The intention is to ensure that drivers are not put off the road when they return their licence to DVLC for amendment or updating—for example, to record a change of address.
Clause 4 modifies the criteria for the acceptance of tests of competence and of previous licences when application is made for a new licence. First, it provides that an applicant who has passed the test of competence must apply within two years for a full licence. Failure to do so will mean that the applicant has to retake the test. Secondly, full licences held after the appointed day will be recognised thereafter without a time limit even if they are surrendered or if entitlement is allowed to lapse. At present where full licences are surrendered or not renewed after disqualification the holder can be required to take a second test after 10 years. This is not compatible with long period licensing and does not have any practical benefit.
Clause 5 modifies the powers of the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke licences on health grounds. The Secretary of State is enabled to require applicants or licence holders to take a more specific test of competence in order to determine their fitness to drive. This is particularly relevant where licence holders develop a medical condition. There should be no need to require them to take a full test when only one particular aspect of their driving ability is in question. The clause also gives the Secretary of State greater flexibility in the scope of the notices he can serve restricting entitlement to drive on health grounds.
Clause 6 will make training of new motor cyclists compulsory by introducing new limitations on the conditions of use of provisional motor cycle and moped licences. Those wishing to start riding will still apply for a provisional licence in the normal way. However, under the Bill, the licence will not take effect unless the holder has either successfully completed the prescribed basic training course or is undertaking training on the road as part of that course. In other words, it will become illegal to ride on the road unless the motor cyclist has completed the course or is being trained. We believe that this change will make a major contribution towards reducing the appalling toll of deaths and injuries to which I have referred.
Clause 7 applies the minor and consequential amendments set out in Schedule 3.
Clause 8 defines the key terms used in Part II of the Bill, which deals with the licensing and regulation of driver information systems. Broadly speaking, a driver information system is one which collects, stores and processes data from which driver information is derived or which transmits such data to motor vehicles. Data is defined in its technical sense. Driver information does not therefore include, for example, conventional traffic broadcasts on the radio.
Clause 9 requires a person who operates a driver information system which gives guidance on public roads to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State.
1034
In Clauses 8 and 9 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to make orders which would have the effect of excluding particular systems or types of information from the licensing requirement. This will enable my right honourable friend to ensure that the requirement is not applied unnecessarily.
Clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to licence the operation of driver information systems and to attach terms and conditions to licences. The clause lists a number of specific conditions which could be included in licences. Clause 11 makes it an offence for a licensed operator to break a licence condition and enables the Secretary of State to revoke or suspend a licence in certain circumstances.
Clause 12 provides licensed operators with certain powers to install and maintain driver information system apparatus in public roads. The powers would be in terms of those contained in the streetworks code, which is part of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. This is the code which governs streetworks by undertakers such as British Telecom or British Gas. Licensed operators will therefore have to follow well-established procedures which involve, for example, notification of proposals to the relevant local highway authority.
Clause 13 gives effect to Schedules 4 and 5, which apply to licensed operators certain provisions of other legislation and provide for arrangements in respect of works by other undertakers which affect apparatus belonging to a licensed operator. The remaining clauses of the Bill contain the usual supplemental provisions, including provisions for repeals and commencement.
I have spent long enough outlining what is a wide-ranging set of proposals. They offer benefits to a great many road users; to drivers of lorries and buses, who will be able to obtain their driving licences more conveniently; to new motor cyclists, who will find themselves properly trained and less likely to face death or injury; and to motorists, for whom systems such as Autoguide could mean fewer delays and less wasted mileage. I commend the measure to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
3.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the Bill even though in regard to Part I there are still certain aspects which I shall require the Minister to explain. I propose to vary normal procedure and to open my remarks by dealing with Part II of the Bill. The Minister referred to the kind invitation which he extended to Members of the House to participate in the demonstration rides for Autoguide. My noble friend Lord Carmichael, who will be replying to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I took advantage of that kind offer. We found it a fascinating experience. We saw demonstrated some high technology and I am certain that the system will bring considerable benefit to motorists. We are grateful for having had the opportunity to take part in the demonstration ride.
The TRRL has estimated that Autoguide could save 12 per cent. of a motorist's time. Estimates of

1035
savings are always difficult to deal with because we all know of the estimates for the cost of the M.25. Those estimates have been proved to be rather useless. It is also estimated that in London alone there could be a saving to motorists of £100 million. Noble Lords will have seen the excellent material issued by the AA and the RAC which have actively participated with various concerns in the development of the system.
I shall return to Part I of the Bill later. However, despite the sort of "blessing" I have given to what I call in shorthand Autoguide and despite the benefits it may bring, I must ask why the system is considered to be worthy of priority over other important matters which ought to feature in a road traffic Bill?
There are two points in particular I wish to make. The Horne Report, which deals with the important issue of road works—commonly termed "holes in the road"—was published in November 1985. Three years later, legislation is still awaited.
The Minister made brief reference to the part of the Bill dealing with street works. Perhaps he will elaborate further, because I did not properly grasp what he said. Unless it is intended to bring forward a new street works Bill under the words of the gracious Speech:
"Other measures will be laid before you",
surely this particular road traffic Bill presents an admirable opportunity to bring forward Horne Report legislation. I am informed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, with which I think most noble Lords know I have some link, that very good progress has been made in discussions between the local authority associations, the National Joint Utilities Group and Department of Transport officials. I am also informed that agreement has been reached on the basic principles on which legislation could be introduced.
The Home Report deals with the problem that leads to hold-ups and congestion—one of the reasons for the suggested Autoguide scheme as outlined in the Bill. It could well be that the installation of the driver information system—Autoguide—could have some effect in regard to the matters raised in the Horne Report. I am rather surprised that the opportunity has not been taken to deal with the issues raised by Horne in a road traffic Bill this year.
The introduction of a road traffic Bill is also surely an opportunity to bring forward legislation on some of the 137 recommendations contained in the North Report on road traffic law; and indeed the work of the joint Department of Transport and local authority association working party on traffic and parking. To bring forward a road traffic Bill without taking account first of all, as I said, of the Horne Report, and also of some of the proposals contained in the North Report, seems rather unwise.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State has said that full decisions on North are promised early in the new year; but that statement was part of a lengthy Written Answer which appeared in the Official Report of the other place on 26th July. The Secretary of State said:
"We have been able to form a view in principle on much of the report".
1036
Noble Lords will recall that penalty points changes mentioned in the North Report were rushed through for inclusion in the consolidation Bill. Surely, some part of the North Report review could have been included in the Bill before us.
Part II of the Bill deals with driver information systems. What will be the involvement of local authorities? There appears to be no mention of their position in the Bill. Surely local authorities must not be ignored, especially in route selection. It would appear from the Bill that only the approval of the Secretary of State is required in respect of roads to be used for the Autoguide system.
I am sure that the installation operators would find the help of highway authorities invaluable; it is also possible that the system would produce information of considerable value to highway authorities. There would appear to be need for agreement between operators and local authorities in relation to the exchange of information. That appears to be a vital necessity, although it is not mentioned in the Bill.
I have no doubt that there will be a general welcome for the suggested Autoguide system provided for in the Bill. Without bringing forward any carping criticism, I would just sound a cautionary note. Could it not be that the very success of the system, as envisaged, could bring an even greater influx of motorists into, say, central London? We might actually start to solve the problem and then create another one.
The Minister referred to the position of the system within the private sector. I wonder whether he can explain the provisions of Clause 10 in relation to the charging of motorists for the use of the information provided by the system. It may be my own lack of understanding of precisely what the words mean. I readily accept that that could be a possibility. However, the Explanatory Memorandum states that Clause 10,
"empowers the Secretary of State to acquire by purchase or otherwise information from a licensed operator and to sell or otherwise dispose of such information".
When I look at Clause 10 I find that subsection (8)(c) refers to regulations by the Secretary of State on charges that may be made to drivers by the licence holder—that is, by the person, the private sector body, which actually installed the operation. But subsection (8)(f) authorises the Secretary of State to make use of the information, including its sale, "as he thinks fit".
Am I confused on the matter? Or am I correct in saying that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to approve charges to be made by operators who sell the scheme, but also that the Secretary of State himself has powers to make such charges for selling the information to drivers? I should like to have that point clarified before the Bill reaches Committee stage.
Further, how is it envisaged that the provision in Clause 10(2) that more than one operator's licence may be assigned to a particular area will work out? That is what I believe Clause 10(2) actually says. But obviously there will be considerable room for consideration of Part II of the Bill in Committee.

1037
As regards Part I of the Bill, I must comment that it is only recently that the House passed a consolidation measure—namely, the Road Traffic Act 1988—and now the Bill which is before us makes considerable amendments to certain sections of that Act. I wonder whether one hand knows what the other is doing. My first criticsim is that although the meanings of a number of terms are given in various clauses—for example, Clauses 1 and 3—I find that we have to wait until we reach Schedule 2 to learn the meaning of LGVs and PCVs. Those are important definitions which replace the heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and public service vehicles (PSVs). It seems rather strange that we have to wait until we reach Schedule 2 before we find the definition of those new terms.
The Minister suggested—indeed, he did not suggest it; he made a definite —statement—that discussion on such matters started in the Community away back in 1980. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
"changes are necessary to comply with the requirements of the European … Directive … and the expected requirements of a forthcoming Second Council Directive".
How strong is that expectation? The Minister said that it will,
"facilitate any changes that may be required".
But what happens if the second directive does not meet the expectations which the Minister and his department think will arise under such a directive? Must we then have additional legislation to amend the amendments which have already been made to the consolidated 1988 Act?
Is it correct, as claimed by the TGWU in its response, that the reduction from 60 to 45 years of age for the renewal of a vocational licence to be accompanied by the relevant medical declaration is not because of the EC directive but arises from a decision of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department of Transport? What medical evidence is there to support the proposal that the age for mandatory medical reports for goods vehicle drivers be reduced to 45 years of age?
In general, the framework for a unified licensing system seems sensible with its integration of the ordinary licence with the goods or passenger licence as the case may be; but there is no doubt that the relevant clauses will need to be examined extremely carefully in Committee. Will the loss of a goods or passenger licence necessarily mean the loss of the ordinary licence to drive motor cars, or will the licences be kept completely separate? Will there be regulations on that matter, or is it intended to insert a provision into the Bill? On the question of regulations, I note that in Clause 15 regulations in respect of Part II (the Autoguide) will be dealt with under the negative procedure, whereas in Schedule 2 on page 26, which relates to regulations in respect of Section 120 of the 1988 Act, there is no indication whether any of them will be dealt with under the affirmative procedure. Some of the amendments to the 1988 consolidation Act are so important that the affirmative procedure is desirable.
At the consultation stage, the TGWU submitted to the DVLC a four-page response to the proposals. I
1038
do not intend to deal with all the many points contained in it. Will the Minister let me know whether the department was involved in consultations with that union, which raised many points, and whether there was general agreement on those points?
From information given by the Minister, the points contained in the TGWU response, the information that we have received from other interested bodies such as the Road Haulage Association, the Bus and Coach Council, the Freight Transport Association, and so on, it would appear that there is a vital need for Notes on Clauses to be made available soon so that we can give detailed consideration in Committee to all the matters, and especially to Part I.
In its consultation document, the TGWU asked whether details of a passenger vehicle driver's employer will be listed on each driver's record at the DVLC. It is considered that such information would be useful when considering the application for renewal of an operator's licence as distinct from a driver's licence.
The operators' body (the Bus and Coach Council) has said that there is no mention in the Bill of whether the practice of passenger vehicle drivers having a badge indicating the area in which it was issued and the number is to be continued. The Bus and Coach Council has stressed that it regards the provision of a badge for a vocational licence for passenger transport drivers to be important and that it should be retained. We shall also need to look carefully at the provisions contained in the schedules with regard to appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State or the Traffic Commissioner, as the case may be.
I shall say just a few words about the suggested training courses for motorcyclists and moped riders. They will be generally welcomed. As the Minister has said, there is great concern about the shocking record of the number of young men and women who are killed and injured as a result of motorcycling accidents. The RAC carried out a first-rate voluntary training scheme until the grant from the department was withdrawn with the introduction of the two-part test scheme way back in 1982. That scheme disappeared once the grant was withdrawn. It appears that that provision in the Bill is an enabling one. Are the Government satisfied that there will be an adequate number of centres available in all parts of the country to provide that training? Unless that is so, difficulties will arise.
Do I understand that no official course will be provided by official centres and arranged by the Department of Transport but that it will be open for private undertakers to apply to the Secretary of State for approval to run such training schemes? If the latter, will the Bill provide for the Secretary of State to lay down maximum charges and other conditions? The Minister explained that when applying for a licence the intended rider of a motorcycle or moped would merely have to give an assurance that he had completed a training course or was being trained. Do I understand that it is not intended that the application should be accompanied by a certificate of a standard of competence to drive, which of course applies to motorists who apply for a driving licence?

1039
The Minister may have seen the chart which has been issued by the Motorcycle Association which represents the trade. It lists the considerable variation in legal controls for the riding of mopeds and motorcycles in the various EC countries. The variations are considerable. What do the Government propose to do in the light of the EC directive on the harmonisation of licences when all these variations apply at the moment?
My last point is that it is hoped that, if approved, the new training scheme connected with the application for licences to ride mopeds and motorcycles will be successful. Will the Minister give an assurance that the scheme will be monitored? I am not asking just for figures which say how many accidents there were before and after the scheme was introduced. I want the scheme monitored to show how all its various phases work. It will be noted that I give a general approval to the Bill. However, certain matters must be considered and some important items which we believe essential to a road traffic Bill have been excluded.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for having explained the Bill in such clear detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I should like to have Notes on Clauses as soon as possible. It would have been useful to have had them before the Second Reading debate but I know that that is not always possible.
The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for taking us through the Bill in such detail and for asking so many of the questions that many of us would like to ask. That being so, I can speak quite briefly. One needs a fairly detailed knowledge of the 1981 and the 1988 Acts in order to pick one's way through the new Bill. That, again, is where Notes on Clauses would have been useful.
I have little more to say on Clauses 1 to 5. We shall all be happy that there will be one basic driving licence for everyone, with various categories within that licence. It will clearly make life much easier particularly, as the Minister said, for people travelling on the Continent.
The only question (which I am sure the Minister has already answered) is whether there will be any diminution of standards in terms of those people allowed to drive heavy goods and passenger service vehicles. Many of us who drive about this country, particularly on the motorways, still feel that the standard of driving of some heavy vehicle drivers leaves a lot to be desired. I do not wish to denigrate the skills of those people, but occasionally one finds oneself trying to keep to the speed limit and being pushed from behind by drivers of heavy lorries flashing their lights. Anything that will improve the standards of driving of these big vehicles is something of which we approve. I only hope that legislation does not go in the opposite direction.
I am glad the Minister is tightening up the medical requirements. As he said, they are one of the most frightening matters. Perhaps it is about time that we
1040
tightened up the medical regulations for ordinary car drivers as well, particularly the eyesight tests for ordinary car drivers.
Clause 6 dealing with motorcyclists is certainly to be welcomed. The 1981 Act, as has been said, introduced the two-part test but I believe that at the moment training only reaches of the order of 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. of new riders. That surely cannot be sufficient. The present schemes are under-used and I believe that there is room for absorbing the increased workload which will be imposed upon them by the new Act.
One of the slightly worrying points is, I understand, that the present training takes between 12 and 18 hours whereas the training under the new arrangements will be less than that. One hears figures of eight hours being mentioned. Are the Government satisfied that enough is being done within the new training schemes to improve the standard of driving of those people who are already being trained? In other words, is the quality slipping in favour of quantity? We favour more and more people being trained, but again let us make sure that standards do not fall. Too many young people are being killed and many are being disabled for life. That is something of which we must be ashamed.
I understand that the new test will be of a pursuit type, which means that the examiner will be following the driver. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong on that. If that is the case then I think that is very good. The idea of the examiner standing on the street corner watching a motorcyclist come round the block has never seemed to me to be a particularly adequate means of observing the candidate.
I hope that there will be scope in training for what is described as defensive driving or defensive riding. Having been a car driver for many years, I suddenly went on a police course in Manchester and realised what bad habits I had built into my driving over a number of years, and in particular that, as a young man, I had been somewhat aggressive in my driving habits. There is no doubt that if one can instil a sense of defensive driving—in other words, the ability to recognise a hazard and to go through it smoothly and get away from it as fast as possible—the number of accidents that might happen will decline.
I hope that the motorcycling organisations will accept the provisions in the Bill. Occasionally they have a tendency to be rather overdefensive. I think it would be a pity if the Bill, which is clearly intended to improve road safety for motorcyclists, were in any way opposed. Of course, if those organisations have any detailed comments to make, naturally your Lordships would be glad to tease out any problems they may have.
I turn to Part II. I was on the sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology which looked at innovation and surface transport. We were very impressed by the potential of driver information which is now available because of new technology. We are very glad to see that the Government are supporting a development project of this kind, which is something that we recommended in our report to your Lordships. If people can get away with it without having to put government funding into the project, all well and good. It looks as

1041
though they have managed to do that, about which I am quite happy, provided that a satisfactory experiment is carried out. Certainly the people providing the technology seem to be willing to fund the project and that is to be applauded. However, there is clearly a need for licensing of these schemes and therefore one accepts the need for Part II of the Bill.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I was a little surprised to find there is no reference in the Bill to communications between the Government and local authorities. It seems to me that the local authorities will need to monitor the effects of these experiments in relation to the impact on their own local authority area. That information should be fed to the Government before they come to any firm conclusions. In order to do that, the local authorities will need some support with funding. There is provision in the Bill in Clause 10(9) for funds to be made available to the licence holders but there does not seem to be any provision for funds to be made available to local authorities for monitoring purposes. I wonder whether the Government would look at that again.
I think that the Minister has answered a question I was going to ask about the definition of driver information systems, but I should like to be sure. Clause 8(3)(a) relates to Clause 9(1) which says:
"… no person shall operate a driver information system in relation to public roads … unless he is authorised to do so by a licence".
If we do not have a sufficiently clear definition of what a driver information system is, one or two people could be in some difficulty. The Minister specifically excluded radio reports from that definition of the driver information system, basing it, as I understand it, on the definition of data in subsection (5). I wonder whether it is tight enough or whether it should say "electronically gathered information", or some such phrase, in order to exclude the possibility of people having to possess a licence to use a normal road map. That may sound rather silly, but it does not seem to me quite as clear as the Minister suggested it is.
I was also glad that digging holes in the road would be subject to the code of practice. Plenty of people are digging holes in the road already without adding more unnecessarily. Although there is supposed to be some co-ordination, it seems that very often the various authorities have just got one hole filled in when another authority comes along and digs up the same piece of road. I remember years ago seeing in the Manchester Evening News a short letter to the editor saying:
"My God, they've dug a hole in the street again!"
It was a heartfelt cry which I think all of us understand. I hope that the code of practice will be effective in this case because there must be co-ordination on those matters.
The other point is that there must be compatibility of systems. I am glad to hear that there is some discussion going on as to what is happening in Berlin. I hope that if other systems are to be introduced, they will also be compatible with continental systems. On the basis of what the TRRL has done, we have the opportunity to do rather well for British industry. It
1042
is to be congratulated on the work that it has done in initiating the system; I hope that we do not lose the compatibility at any later stage. I believe that if this kind of driver information can be introduced—and this was certainly the view of your Lordships' Select Committee—it could add enormously to drivers' mobility. It could also save a lot of money in the long run, not simply by letting people get to their destinations more quickly and safely, without going through traffic jams, but with the possibility of saving on roadworks. The necessity to construct more dual carriageways in urban areas can certainly be overcome by the use of driver information and other road traffic information. Certainly schemes such as the one set up by the West Yorkshire authority, which allowed traffic lights to be co-ordinated, has made a big difference to the way in which traffic flow is eased. That certainly applies to Autoguide. Therefore, the fact that proper experimentation will be allowed is to be welcomed. Certainly we welcome the Bill in general terms, although there will be quite a few detailed points that we shall want to raise at the next stage.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to add a few words of thanks to my noble friend for introducing this Bill and for giving us such a detailed and lucid explanation of its features. I must make an apology in advance as I wish to be excused later due to an urgent appointment outside. Therefore, I shall have to break my rule of normally staying until the end of debates.
The first part of the Bill concerning the unified driver licensing system has been so very adequately covered by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the many questions that he asked—we shall have some fairly long debates in Committee—that all I wish to add is that clearly it will be an advantage to have one single comprehensive licence. It is vital that it should be compatible with the European system. It will clearly be of benefit to all, but there are a number of technical points which have to be ironed out.
I now turn to my old friend which appears in Clause 6—a compulsory system of motor cycle tests off the road before a licence is granted. I warmly welcome that provision. It contains certain features which I am not quite sure about, but the fact that this provision should at last be appearing on the statute book is a considerable achievement. It has been badly needed for years. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the RAC's pioneering work. That was very valuable work and it cost that organisation quite a lot of money. Of course when the department withdrew its grant, that put paid to that work. There is a good deal of such work going on now, but nothing like enough.
However, this provision will now make it compulsory for all applicants to take a course of training at an approved off-street training centre. An applicant must obtain a certificate at the completion of that training before he applies for his test. I make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has made, as regards the training lasting normally eight hours. That does not seem to me to be long enough to teach a young person all that he or she

1043
needs to know about driving a motorbike and road safety. What we really want to obtain is young drivers who are safety seekers rather than risk seekers, which far too many of them still are. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, if we could manage to teach them defensive driving that would be quite something. But that cannot be done in eight hours. I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to take a more liberal view on that. If, as a consequence of a longer period, the training necessitates a higher charge, which seems too high for an applicant to meet, the Government should step in and meet the rest of the cost.
This is the one moment when young drivers can really be taught something. They are under the control of the person conducting the training and they really can be taught something off the road about riding a motorbike safely. We must make the best of that opportunity. My noble friend has given us the terrifying figures of the loss of life and loss of limbs that occur among motorbike riders. Anything we can do to reduce those figures will be worth doing. If it costs money to do that, the equation must be on the side of doing it. I ask my noble friend to take note of that point. Perhaps we may return to it in Committee.
I understand that there are about 1,000 training centres in the country run by the British Motorcyclist's Federation, by RoSPA, by local authorities and other independent people. So probably there are enough centres, but my noble friend must make sure that the number of centres is adequate to meet the demand. If there are not enough centres, I am sure he will take steps to see that there will be.
I note that my noble friend is to introduce regulations in this connection. Obviously that is necessary. I ask him to ensure that consultations are widespread and that they involve all the interests concerned to make sure that we get these regulations right. I believe that when an applicant has received his certificate from a training centre to certify that he has reached the proper standard, he will then take his road test. It will be the road test that will be conducted on the basis of a pursuit test on the public road. That seems to me to be quite sensible.
On the driver information system, which I find a most welcome innovation, I congratulate my noble friend and the Secretary of State on the speed of the legislation in this very important venture. Anything which would give our congested traffic the benefit of this ingenious new aid would be of value. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, warned that it may attract more traffic into an area and eventually make things worse than ever. We shall have to wait and see whether that occurs. But the kind of estimates that the TRRL makes are usually pretty reliable. If this provision will save time of the order of 10 per cent., it will be most valuable to commercial users, and probably to private motorists too. That assumes, of course, that the charge for using it is kept to a reasonable level. The noble Lord is nodding his head because none of us will be able to afford the charge.
I had the interesting experience of a trial run of the system which the RAC kindly arranged for me. I was
1044
impressed by it. It seemed to work very simply. No doubt the complexity of the computer control system which causes it all to happen is very complicated indeed. But, as has been said, it works on a system of fixing beacons at strategic points which monitor the traffic, so that as a driver who is keyed into the system through a console on his dashboard moves along, he is instructed which turning to take as he comes to intersections. As he proceeds he is routed by the beacons, which pick up the densities of traffic in their area, and therefore selects the best route he can take to reach his destination. It is a very admirable system. When one sees it working in practice, one cannot fail to be impressed by it.
We must congratulate both GEC and Plessey which are working respectively with the two motoring organisations, the RAC and the AA, on all the preparatory work they have done in drawing up a system together with the TRRL and the Ministry. As a result of that work, it has now reached a state where we and another place can consider it with a view to the necessary legislation which will be needed to fix beacons.
I join with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that local authorities must be brought into the picture. They will be interested not only in the fixing of the traffic beacons, but also in what routes are taken and what the consequences are. My impression is that the system will probably improve traffic flow as it will prevent congested areas from becoming more congested than ever.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not also the case that local authorities will have an interest in those areas to which the traffic is moved, as it were, from the congested areas? That was why I felt that local authorities should have a special consultation on this matter. It is not just a matter of congestion being relieved, but that traffic is being pushed somewhere they may not wish it to go.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is true, but I make the general assumption that the traffic will not be pushed into residential areas. That would clearly be a complete failure of the system.
As I said, the RAC has teamed up with GEC and the AA has teamed up with Plessey. The cost of setting up a pilot scheme will be in the order of £5 million to £10 million and take about four years. It is quite a hefty undertaking. While I heard my noble friend say that he will welcome proposals, I wonder how that will work out. I should not like to see it fall between two stools because something goes wrong with the competition. We want to see a pilot scheme set up and operating in London as soon as possible and as soon as this legislation is on the statute book. The point has already been made that a similar pilot scheme is being promoted in Berlin. That is of great interest to us, as is the assurance that there will be co-ordination between us so that we can benefit from each other's experience.
I should like to conclude my remarks on that subject by again congratulating my noble friend, his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the TRRL for taking time by the forelock and bringing forward legislation so that we can quickly

1045
benefit from a scheme which could be of considerable benefit to traffic not only in London but also in other large cities and therefore to the whole community.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend on the way in which he has introduced the Bill. A Bill whose title starts with the words "Road Traffic" always encourages us to think of its omissions because we should all like to see a variety of other matters included, so seldom do we have an opportunity to consider a road traffic Bill. However, I shall try to keep my remarks to the matters in hand.
I turn first to the single unified licensing system. That must be a benefit, at least on paper. However, I share some of the doubts of some of the transport organisations about the efficiency of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea. Noble Lords will probably recall that that was the subject of an exchange between my noble friend the Minister and myself at Question Time recently. In both the heavy goods vehicle and passenger service vehicle worlds there are a number of anomalies which the change will not ease so far as I can see.
For example, an HGV or PSV licence applicant, on passing his test, is not enabled to take up his occupation until he is physically in possession of the licence or, in the case of the PSV applicant, the licence and the badge. That already takes a good deal of time and one would want to be assured that processing through the DVLC at Swansea will produce an improvement in the system. It is rather costly when one has trained a driver if in boredom at not receiving the paperwork to enable him to earn his living he then departs to some other occupation.
At some time, not necessarily this evening, we should like the Minister to reassure us that drivers over 21 but probably not holding either an HGV or PSV licence will still be permitted to drive those vehicles between garages and depots or on tests, in other words not plying for trade in the usual sense, on a normal licence. One would not want to see any diminution of that responsibility.
On the question of the unified licence I note that my noble friend said that it will be proposed to introduce a requirement for medical certificates in support of an application for the renewal of a licence. I should like to look very much further into the question of the age at which the Minister has suggested that that will operate, namely 45 years of age. He said—I think that it was the Minister but it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—that medical advice indicated that the health curve starts a downward trend at about the age of 40. That may be so in certain areas of health but it is not necessarily so in all cases. I am thinking in particular of eyesight and impaired vision, a subject which your Lordships discussed at very great length most of last summer and in the early part of the autumn when debating the Health and Medicines Bill. I suggest that we might consider reducing the age limit still further, perhaps to 35 years of age. Perhaps during later stages of the Bill we can be told when the health certificates will be required.
1046
I am tempted to suggest that the health qualification should also be introduced for the holders of private motor car licences. I do not want to upset the holders of licences valid until the age of 70, but perhaps involvement in any accident which is reportable should be followd by a medical test. I draw my evidence for the necessity of such tests from a study by McKean and Edington at Southampton University on the effects of glaucoma on motor car drivers—the "I did not see it on my left/right" syndrome. I think that we might make some small contribution to reducing the incidence of accidents if we did something of that nature. Perhaps my noble friend would like to tell me how he feels about that suggestion, perhaps later on in a letter.
I think that that concludes the comments that I wish to make on Clause 1 and also Clause 5 which strengthens the powers of the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke licences on the grounds of physical fitness. That is a sensitive issue for him but one which I believe that the Secretary of State has to grasp quite firmly. As I say, it could add to the safety of road users.
My next point relates to Clause 6. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford have spoken about that clause. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who mentioned the possibility of the Government stepping in if the cost of motorcycle training courses became prohibitive, that I can see no reason whatsoever for the Government to step in and help people to train themselves to drive or to ride motor cycles. However, it is essential that the Government satisfy themselves that across the country there are adequate training facilities, of a uniform standard, and that the trainers charge reasonable fees. It has been suggested that the Bill should prescribe maximum fees only, but I do not believe that that is very important.
On the basis of the experience of the RAC in supporting motor cycle training, which as my noble friend said finished in 1982, I am surprised that the Government could think that any eight-to-12-hour training course is adequate. Both the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend spoke in terms of defensive driving and defensive riding. I think that they were talking about what I should call roadcraft, the sensibility of other road users irrespective of the ability to control a particular piece of machinery. Certainly I cannot see that being learnt or practised adequately in eight to 12 hours.
Lastly, I turn to that part of Part II of the Bill which deals with information services. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sounded a cautionary note, in which he said that perhaps the success of this system might encourage a heavier density of traffic, or words to that effect. Of course that is so. It is a fact—is it not—that the Department of Transport continually and over successive reviews, has failed to appreciate that a new road generates traffic; for example, the M25. With a prediction of something like a 40 per cent. growth of traffic by the end of the century, one must use all efforts to direct that traffic in the best possible way. Certainly the information service that is proposed goes some way toward doing that.

1047
I look to that kind of system perhaps to make better use of all the roads that are available. I should not like to put a precondition on the pilot scheme or those who will operate it about the kind of roads, other than private roads, that the traffic should use. There is no doubt that a shortage of mile space—that is, the number of vehicles per mile exceeding the amount of space available—particularly around and inside London should not be maintained at the expense of under-utilisation of other roads.
Clearly any benefits from a system such as that described in Autoguide will be widespread. At this point I should like to thank both the RAC and the Automobile Association and those companies which have joined with them to promote similar schemes for their foresight and for expending large sums of money. Clearly the users will have to pay but also the non-user will benefit and that seems to me to present some little anomaly; in other words there is the free rider.
If traffic is to move more progressively and if there is to be a 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. saving in traffic time, everyone will benefit. If in fact there will be a saving of £100 million as a result of reducing time wasted around London alone compared with an estimated loss of £2,400 million, other people will be beneficiaries and I wonder whether that is absolutely right.
I have one little niggle, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also referred. It appears frequently throughout the Bill and in particular in Schedule 2. Why have we suddenly introduced "LGV"? Irrespective of the definition, what is a large goods vehicle? We have had enough trouble—certainly in the last 20 years, as I can recall—in describing an HGV (a heavy goods vehicle). The definition in the schedule does not appear to be any different from that for HGV, which is something over 7.5 tonnes. In the same schedule we also have the ridiculous situation of talking about a "small passenger-carrying vehicle".
With HGVs, LGVs and PSVs, it is no wonder that many people do not understand what we are talking about. I urge my noble friend the Minister to find a commonality of definitions. Enough are banned in this kind of legislation. I welcome the Bill. I shall also welcome answers to some of the points made by noble Lords in this debate. Perhaps some issues, in particular on health and licensing, one might wish to raise in detail in the later stages of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this very interesting Bill. I have been a keen motor cyclist for 48 years and I still come to your Lordships' House on my motor cycle. I have long since ceased to be competitive on the roads. I now ride defensively and by so doing I hope to continue to ride here for some considerable time longer. I should like to confine the major part of my speech to the motor cycle section of the Bill.
Motor cycle and moped riders and the motor cycling industry have a relevant interest in all aspects of the Bill and in particular those proposals which
1048
relate to compulsory training. 1 shall come to that in a moment. The enabling legislation to permit harmonisation of driving licences throughout the European Community is warmly welcomed by the motor cycling industry. It is plainly nonsense that in this mobile age, when many British riders and drivers travel abroad for their holidays, some may find their licences invalid in the country of their destination. It is equally important for residents of other EC countries to have equal rights in this country.
It is understood—and the Minister may wish to confirm it—that Britain does not intend to seek derogation from the forthcoming European Community draft directive on licensing harmonisation. That is an important point without which there could be no equal validity of licences throughout the Community.
The differences that exist at present are most marked when one studies the rules in European countries for motor cycle and moped licences. Between them, the 12 European Community member countries employ almost every possible combination of age, training, testing, licensing and safety provisions, including power and weight regulations for drivers of different ages and experience. For instance, in Belgium, France, Italy and Spain, moped riders can start using a machine at the age of 14, with very few limitations. Britain permits moped riders only at the age of 16 and they are subject to a number of controls such as holding a licence and wearing a helmet. In total, access to mopeds in European Community countries is permitted between the ages of 14 and 17. Access to motor cycles, possibly of low power output, is permitted between the ages of 16 and 18, with Britain adopting a 17 year-old age limit and much stricter controls than many other countries demand.
I do not complain about the safety controls applied in this country. Indeed, the new compulsory training provisions are also to be welcomed in principle. However, if the variation in driver licensing for motor cycle and moped riders is to be smoothed out in a way that is fair to all European countries, then the present British rules on age limits will have to be reviewed. There may be considerable scope for varying age limits in conjunction with safety and training standards. It is important that the Minister recognises the need for flexibility in this issue.
The Bill gives legal substance to the Minister's proposal to require compulsory training for riders before they are allowed to use powered two-wheelers on the public highway. Clause 6(1) requires that riders being tested for the current Parts I and II examinations must show that they have passed an approved training course. Clause 6(2) means that provisional licences only have validity for riders if they have passed an approved training course or are on the public highway in the course of training. It also sets out the requirements that the Minister may impose on training standards and the training organisations. It also states:
"different provision may be made for training in different classes of motor cycles".
I understand that the motor cycle industry welcomes these proposals in principle. In fact the Motor Cycle Association, representing motor cycle

1049
manufacturers, made a strong call four years ago for the compulsory training of all new riders.
The Bill will provide enabling legislation, and it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will be able to introduce compulsion until mid-1990 at the earliest. In the meantime the Motor Cycle Association is asking all motor cycle dealers to use every endeavour to ensure that new riders take training before going on the road, despite the absence of legal compulsion.
What concerns me is that there are many areas in this country where training facilities are inadequate, and we understand that dealers in these areas may be unable to ensure that new riders take training before going on the road. However, I know that dealers take a responsible attitude to training in general and will be endeavouring to work within the spirit of the new law even before its introduction.
The Motor Cycle Association will shortly present the Department of Transport with a full audit of training schemes and training facilities in Britain which identifies parts of the country where there must be extra instructors and more training facilities before compulsory training can be brought in nationwide. The industry will discuss the findings with the department, and I hope that the Minister will welcome the important information that it will contain.
I wonder whether the Minister would also accept the principle that compulsory professional training now established by the Government should be adopted also for learner car drivers and drivers who are required to retake their driving test? The sad fact is that, however skilled the motor cyclist, the majority of accidents in which riders are involved are caused by other road users, and according to government statistics about half of all such accidents are caused by car drivers. Their skills also need to be developed for their own protection and to improve the safety of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, pedal cyclists, and motor cyclists.
While on the subject of the health disability part of the Bill, health disability requirements, including possibly stricter tests, potentially affect all licence holders as they become older or recover from disabling illness. There is no specific indication that testing of riders would be any more severe than for other road users with similar disabilities, but the Minister's reassurance on this point would be most welcome. I should also appreciate his indication of the types of disability that are likely to come under stricter scrutiny. I welcome the Bill and I am sure that it will improve road safety, which is such an important part of it.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing this Bill to us. It is a most interesting Bill, and I look forward to the Committee stage. I apologise to the House in that, although I hope to stay if speeches are not too long so as to hear the Minister's reply, I am committed to an annual general meeting and must leave at a certain time.
I do not necessarily require a reply today, but I should like to ask the Minister whether this Bill
1050
would enable us to bring in a type of probationary licence. By that I mean the system that operates in Australia whereby a newly-qualified driver drives with a large P displayed on his car for a certain period after gaining a licence. I do not know whether the period is a year, or what it is, but something of that type would be a great safety measure. It certainly warns other drivers to be careful of that person as a new driver. Passing the test is just the beginning of the learning process, and not the end.
In the same way, I should have thought that those people who are driving on a limited medical qualification driving licence might show something. If you are a disabled driver you have something that identifies your car, which tends to make other drivers a little more patient. Whether or not under Euro terms we would be entitled to consider suggestions such as that I do not know, and I should like the Minister to let me know at some stage. The impatience of other drivers is a great problem, and one of the great causes of the intimidation of more timid or less experienced drivers.
I welcome Clause 5 and the clarification in terms of physical unfitness. However, I think it creates a difficulty that the DVLC should be so good in terms of people with progressive illnesses who get licences for one year, or three years, at a time and it considers that those people are fit to drive, when they are not allowed to drive unless they get insurance and yet no insurance company is obliged to offer insurance. This is rather an unfair situation, and I hope that this additional clarification in the Bill will make insurers take more seriously the fact that the DVLC has had a better proof to the fitness to drive.
Many in your Lordships' House have mentioned the problem of eyesight and impaired vision. This is a real problem. The noble Lord concerned is no longer living and that is why I tell you this story. My car was crushed in the car park here. The next day I asked the police officer if he knew who had done it. The damage was on the other side of the car and was not visible at night when I drove off. He said, "Yes, I know exactly. In fact, I saw it happen". He said, "That noble Lord drives by touch".
I thought that perhaps there might be something in that, and I was absolutely convinced when I arranged a meeting with the noble Lord concerned. We looked at my white car, which had a telltale mark of his car colour. He said to me, "Well, come and look at mine. I cannot understand when my car is in such perfect condition where that paint mark can have come from". I looked at his small, brightly-coloured Mini, and every corner was completely crushed. That gave me every reason to doubt his eyesight, and yet he was driving and believed that he was fit to do so. This question of eyesight is important, and it is a situation that many of us do not appreciate. Our eyesight could be deteriorating in terms of long-distance eyesight in traffic. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned impaired vision, and it is one of the most serious problems that faces us in traffic today.
I welcome the compulsory basic training for motor cyclists. In my work at County Hall I was always involved in trying to encourage young people to take motorcycle training. Like many parents, my heart

1051
sank when my daughter came to me and said that she wanted a large, powerful motorbike. When I could see that there was no way of persuading her out of it I said, "Well, only on the basis that you go and have training sessions". I think it was the police who did the training at Enfield. She went once a week for about 10 weeks, so that the course was probably no longer than people say these courses will be, and she became very competent on that motorbike.
In another committee that I was on we discovered that the point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent is so relevant. Young people who want motorcycles want to be seen to be rather daring. Therefore, if you can in some way tie in their training skills with some rather impressive and showy badge that you can achieve by becoming competent to a certain standard, you have more hope than if you are only impressing the safety angle.
The electronic display system is a different matter entirely in the Bill. I thank the RAC and the AA for the information they have provided for me. This morning I went out with another noble Lord for a trial drive. I was concerned to discover that it was electronic display. I worry about how one can watch that and the road at the same time. The driver said, "No, it is not like that. It tells you when to turn right in a voice". Another noble Lord said from the rear seat, "My wife does that!". I thought that that was a marvellous and true remark because so many spouses tell the husband or wife who is driving which way to go or which way to turn. For those who do not have that benefit, the new electronic system has great merit. There are problems with it. At the beginning it will be quite expensive. For it to become a success, it will have to be so effective that its use is widespread and the technology will have to be so inexpensive that everyone has it.
It was explained to us that the beacon would count vehicles passing. However, it would count only those vehicles fitted with the apparatus. If that is the case, it is not much use. One would want to know every vehicle that was passing, not just those fitted with the device. As the technology develops further, it seems that this will be possible. The bus counting devices already in place in the street count every vehicle that passes, not just those with a certain instrument, as I understand it.
The device also takes no account of stationary obstructions such as skips parked illegally, legally parked vehicles or—worst of all—the cones indicating road repairs. As a result, the information given may not be as helpful as one imagines. What looks like a road with little passing traffic may have such a obstruction in it. Those of us who know central London well are aware that it is now almost like one enormous building site. No matter where one goes, one finds that the road is up or lined with skips or cones. It is important for something to be done. I understand that, through the computer system, it would be possible for the information to be relayed back electronically about obstructions. However, they would not be picked up automatically by the beacons because they are in a fixed position.
1052
As to the question of main roads or minor roads, this will be sorted out by the pilot system. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said that he hoped that traffic would not be pushed into residential streets. I do not think that that is a great risk. Throughout my traffic planning days we spent our time preventing people being rat runners. Traffic systems and no entry systems have been developed to such an extent that whole areas are not open to passing traffic. I do not think that we need worry about that. I think that it should be possible to use whatever roads are available for through traffic now.
There is great cause for concern in London today. One noble Lord wondered where the traffic was going to. This is an overall problem in London. Because there is no strategic control over the whole of London traffic, each London borough is keen to move the problems on to the next borough and to do away with any problems in its own area. The Department of Transport would be well advised to consider seriously taking a more overall view of London traffic movement. Its attitude has been that the London boroughs between them can agree these matters. That is not working. Anyone involved in traffic in a local borough now will confirm what I say.
Mention was made of the Home Report by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I had an Unstarred Question on the Horne Report tabled for a whole year in the House. No one was interested in it. I could never get anyone to support me in asking for the report to be debated as an Unstarred Question. I think that it is highly relevant. The streets are dug up repeatedly, which is a waste of public money. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, there is the repetitious digging of the same place, which results in a degree of obstruction and loss in terms of traffic movement. The report considers how reinstatement could be carried out by the electricity board or the gas authority instead of the task of restoration going elsewhere. That would speed up the process. I hope that, through the Bill, we shall be able to look again at the Horne Report.
It is hoped that the DVLC through the new legislation will be able to make printouts and information more rapidly available for magistrates' courts. In the court in which I sit, we regularly have to put off cases for a month at a time to allow yet another month to produce the necessary printout. With the new system it is hoped that that will be easier. It would be very useful and would save much public time and money if the system could be so centralised and efficient that the information was more readily available.
It is a most interesting Bill. The pilot scheme is a great innovation, and may prove to be a huge benefit. It will need refinements and expansion and will have to be taken up in a larger way, but it is a beginning and I hope that it proves to be a success. I support the Bill.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, there is a certain challenge in following the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. She was very amusing; I am not going to be in the least bit funny. The Whips have rightly chosen

1053
us to speak because we are talking about different areas.
The Bill looks like an innocent Iamb; it is not. Equally, it is not a wolf. When I first looked at it, I thought it uncontroversial and sensible. This may still be so. However, as in all legislation, there are hidden depths and anomalies that need to be fully discussed in its passage through the House.
I shall deal only with the passenger service vehicle element, although other issues may creep in. I say that because, while innocently doing a little rewriting in the Princes Chamber, a certain noble Baroness—whom we all respect and of whom we are all very fond—said to me, "They have been talking about the motor bicycle driver and how he has to be trained. What about the victims?". For the noble Baroness, I make the point that the victim is very often forgotten. For the noble Baroness's sake, I have mentioned the point. I now return to my own speech.
The transfer to the driver and vehicle licensing centre may be a very good thing because there are long delays in obtaining test appointments and in the issue of licences. The situation for various reasons has deteriorated to an unacceptable degree. In some traffic areas delays of up to eight weeks after the test can occur in issuing the licence. This may have followed a period of up to 12 weeks' waiting for the test.
When I started to write this speech, I included the word "centralisation". Here in the Chamber, however, I recall that at one time that word was totally unacceptable. The difficulty is to find an alternative. There will be sympathy for noble Lords in this predicament.
The driver and vehicle licensing centre must improve on an unsatisfactory state of affairs. There is a shortage of drivers in most traffic areas: in some areas it is becoming severe. The situation is not helped by a delay of up to 14 weeks during which a person is engaged but cannot work as a PSV driver. He must be given alternative work or find temporary work. Often he finds alternative employment and therefore the training and employment costs are wasted.
When an operator intends to introduce a new service or a network of services the 1985 Act requires six weeks and that timescale must be strictly adhered to. In those circumstances it is difficult and often impossible for an operator to recruit and train drivers in order to have them licensed in time to operate the increased level of service.
A temporary authority is required, such as the pink slip. It can be issued immediately after a person has passed the test and can relate to the ordinary driving licence or the heavy goods vehicle licence. The department has said that a licence should be issued within seven days after the test. It may be an improvement, but it is still unacceptable. We are told that the pink slip is not issued because there is no provisional licence. But the industry is not convinced that that is satisfactory. It is a matter to which I must return in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the badge system of PSV drivers. At present each driver
1054
has a badge showing letters and numbers indicating the issuing traffic area. So far the Government have not mentioned how that is to be dealt with. It would take too long to describe the necessity for retaining the bades but the industry—both employers and employees—believe that they should be retained.
The Bill proposes that the PSV arid HGV licences should be valid until the holder is 45 years old, instead of being valid for only five years as at present. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth dealt with that proposal. The Bus and Coach Council has indicated to me that it agrees with the proposal in broad principle. I am unhappy about it.
I am relieved and delighted to note that the Traffic Commissioners will retain their present role in relation to drivers' conduct. In 1985, and in order to further my public service vehicle education, I visited a traffic commissioner's office. I found it to be a rewarding and valuable experience. I was extremely impressed with the way in which the office was run and the dedication of the traffic commissioner and his staff. Traffic commissioners are respected by both the public service and heavy goods vehicle industries.
I am unhappy with the long period before renewal of a licence. Some drivers may not have driven a public service or heavy goods vehicle for 10 years. Should they be allowed to drive such a vehicle without retraining? There may have been increases in the width, height, length and weight of the vehicle and also advances in technology? I believe that a new directive is awaited from the EC about licence categories and that the decision is almost imminent. I understand that details will be given well before the Committee stage.
The Bill gives your Lordships' House a unique opportunity to clean up one or two grey areas which exist in public service vehicle licensing. One such area is that at present county council authorities which use school buses are allowed to employ non-PSV drivers in the operation of local services. That is totally ridiculous. It is a nonsense that a loophole should exist within a licensing system.
In 1985 the Government promised that the requirements for those holding PSV licences were to be extended to all drivers of vehicles adapted to carry 17 or more passengers. They aimed to introduce the provision on 1st April 1987, or as soon as possible after that date. A man or woman could pass the driving test at the age of 21 and on that date drive a double-decker vehicle on contract carrying 17 or more people. That is an area in which the Government promised to act. They have not done so; they should do so.
There is a great deal of work to be done by your Lordships during the remaining stages of the Bill. I understand that there is to be only one day for the Committee stage. I have four amendments to table, and I am dealing with only one part of the Bill. We shall be kept very busy.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Teviot. I should like to congratulate the Minister on so ably guiding the House through the Bill. He explained

1055
Part II of the Bill but I am afraid that I still do not understand it. Perhaps that it is because I was brought up with candles and am not proficient in modern thinking. I shall deal exclusively with a few parts of Part I.
In my view, the new licence is an important step forward, and it will be welcomed by all distance lorry drivers, including those who travel on the Continent. Will it still be necessary to hold an international driving licence in addition to that which is issued by those at Swansea after a long delay?
My noble friend touched on the length of time taken to obtain a licence. I have in mind my eldest grandson who has taken his driving test today, and I am anxious to leave your Lordships' Chamber to discover whether he has passed. In view of the delay is it possible for the examiner to issue a paper to the examinee at the end of a test stating whether he has passed? That paper would be valid until the official licence was issued. It is an idea but perhaps the Minister has already thought of it.
Noble Lords may expect me to say something about Clause 5. I should first like to record the deep sense of gratitude felt by those of us who are physically disabled. The phrase used in the Bill is "physical unfitness". We are grateful to the dedicated mechanics who make it possible for one to drive almost any kind of vehicle, however bad one's disability. They are friends to all of us. Where would we be without them? We should not be in your Lordships' Chamber and should probably still be at home. It is only because of the expertise of those people in adapting all kinds of vehicles that the lives of the physically unfit are made worthwhile.
As we all know, disability takes many forms. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lady Gardner of Parkes for raising the subject of impaired eyesight. I am absolutely convinced that quite a number of bad accidents would not occur if people had to pass an eysight test and a frequent one at that—I suggest every five or 10 years. As noble Lords will realise an eyesight test is not now mandatory after the initial passing of the test in order to gain one's licence. My eyesight was perfect when I passed the test many years ago when I was 18, but I should be the first to admit that I now have to wear glasses. Some other people do not wear glasses and it is in that context that accidents occur. It is vital that one should be able to correctly measure distances and judge the speed of vehicles both in front and oncoming. If one cannot do that then accidents occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned a test at the age of 35 rather than 45 for some licences and I think I agree with him. Therefore the frequency of testing will be something which is important for the Swansea licence division to warn us about; namely, that one's licence will expire if a test is not taken. I believe that it is very important that we should be warned as to when one should take a further test or that one's licence is due to expire. In my view, this Bill is an excellent opportunity to make eyesight testing mandatory for as long as the Government think fit.
1056
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron admitted to having driven a motor cycle for 46 years. I believe I rode as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle when I was about 14, which is rather a long time ago, and I was terrified and should be terrified now. I hope that the Highway Code will be very much part of the test for those young people because they are usually young. I know that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is somewhat older than the age group which I envisage. However, most motor cyclists are young and I believe that a test of the Highway Code is necessary as is a test on different conditions on the road because it is very important that they should be able to brake or occasionally stop skidding. Therefore, I believe that they should have more than 12 hours' tuition.
I am glad that Schedule 3 makes it clear that volunteer drivers are still allowed to drive. One thinks of people in Scotland, in urban areas or even more in the countryside where voluntary drivers take out eight or 10 people in a minibus. They perhaps take people to or from hospital, or in the countryside collect people to take them to church or other meetings. They will not have to pass a special test. I believe that that is very important.
That is all I have to say before Committee stage. I do not believe that it will be a long Committee stage because this is a good Bill, and I hope it will have a fair wind.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to carry on from where my noble friends Lady Macleod, Lord Lucas and Lady Gardner have left off.
Will the Government consider introducing a requirement that every driving licence holder must have, perhaps every five years, an eyesight test certificate, because under Section 99 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a person may possess a driving licence up to the age of 70 having originally obtained that licence aged 17 under Section 101? Although Section 96 makes it an offence for any person to drive with defective eyesight, he may be unaware of the poor quality of his eyesight unless tested.
As my noble friend Lord Brabazon has already stated, Part I of the Bill modifies health requirements for drivers but I have not found anything in it dealing with eyesight. The 1988 Act is a consolidating Act into which nothing can be added. This Bill is the first opportunity for the Government to be able to legislate to make sure that drivers can see to drive. Unfortunately one's eyesight may deteriorate at any age and, as has already been said, some people with poor eyesight should not be driving. It should not be expensive for any driver to obtain either from his doctor or optician a certificate to state that he has passed an eyesight test. I suggest that there should be an amendment to this Bill making it an offence under Section 96 to fail to have that test certificate. However, it does not need to have anything to do with Swansea.
Otherwise I believe that this is an excellent Bill and I wish it a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that everyone would agree that this has been a very interesting and full debate. Particularly when one is on this side of the Chamber, when this point is reached, everything has been said, and since I am not competent to give the answers to many points raised by noble Lord's that makes matters more difficult. Obviously I shall look forward to what the Minister tells us.
We are grateful for his explanation of the Bill. We must also be grateful for the very thorough examination of the Bill undertaken by my noble friend Lord Underhill. Due to those two explanations we may not be quite so dependent on Notes on Clauses. However, instead of ploughing through two excellent explanatory speeches it may be good if, particularly on some of the points raised today, the Minister will give us some Notes on Clauses.
There is no doubt that by and large the Bill has been well received. The three parts of the Bill are not absolutely connected. One wishes that motoring and roads legislation could become more consolidated than it is at present. I believe that this Bill was brought forward because the Government are anxious to put through Part III of the Bill. Therefore, they included other things at the beginning which perhaps seem to be less important. I may be doing the Minister an injustice; perhaps the new rules on HGVs had to be included because of pressure from Europe. However I am glad that after many months and years we have now harmonised with Europe in one respect.
Incidentally, I take it that the new licence will be Euro-compatible—I think that was the phrase used. This is perhaps a small point, but does this mean that when the new licence is available we will not need to rush to get a translation for Italy? I think that is the only country which requires a translation of the driving licence. If I remember rightly, I believe you must have an international licence for Spain, but I am not sure about that. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the position.
There is no doubt about one point that was dealt with by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and also the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, who always attends any debate in which motorcycles are concerned. We must all pay considerable attention to his great expertise and his continued faith in the motorcycle after so many years. One of the charming aspects of this House is that there are so many people with different skills. Having spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on a number of occasions I know that he is not only a motorcycle user but has a very attractive little collection of motorcycles.
A number of noble Lords mentioned eyesight. I do not know whether the Minister is happy with the eyesight test for drivers but I suspect that it is a general feeling rather than there being any evidence that bad eyesight is a serious contributary factor to road accidents.
I was particularly fascinated by a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who
1058
unfortunately has had to leave before the end of the debate. She referred to the Australian special "P" plate on vehicles, suggesting "provisional", which is displayed for a period after passing the driving test. For a long time one of my hobby horses has been the abuse of the "L" plate in Britain. It is most annoying to see vehicles displaying "L" plates with drivers who obviously are not under instruction. I know that other noble Lords and Members in the other place have raised that point on a number of occasions. Therefore, I do not believe that the inclusion of another plate indicating that the driver is on probation would carry a great deal of weight in this country unless we do something about the abuse of "L" plates.
Generally speaking, this part of the Bill was well accepted. There were a few comments on the delays at the DVLC. I know that there is a new computer and would be glad to hear whether it is in complete working order now. One problem was that the wrong computer was chosen but that criticism is made with hindsight and I now understand that a great deal has been learnt and the new computer established.
We have had a great deal of expert information on the training of motorcyclists from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and also the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who has a respected record at RoSPA. Anything that can be done to reduce the serious number of motorcycle accidents is obviously to be welcomed.
Perhaps the most interesting and fashionable—if that is the right word—part of the Bill is Part II and the proposals for Autoguides. Like my noble friend Lord Underhill, I too thank the Minister for having made arrangements for us to travel in a car through a part of London to see how the Autoguide works. The experience was fascinating and interesting. It demonstrated great possibilities for certain jobs. However, I would have some criticism if the system were to be fitted to all cars. I assume that cars would have some indication to show that they are fitted with an Autoguide and if, after using the side roads, motorists try to make their way into the main road I am not sure whether I would be all that keen to let them in. I may be awkward in that respect, but perhaps some aspects need to be considered.
I can see enormous advantages for commercial companies in regard to deliveries, and so on. No doubt the system would first be set up in cities. If it is to be established throughout Europe I imagine it would not be difficult to buy the correct hard or soft discs to operate it in any city which is suitably equipped.
I am always cautious about the savings that can be made with such proposals, particularly if one adds up all the savings that have been promised with all the different techniques used. I remember a very old man, a pipe smoker, who told me many years ago that if you had all the gadgets that cool the tobacco in one pipe you would end up with pneumonia. There is probably something in that. There have been so many promises of savings. Clearly there will be savings but no doubt they will be swallowed up by the general increase in traffic in our major cities and more specifically in London.

1059
Reference was made to the North Report and why we are not proceeding with a number of proposals which should be seriously considered for our inner cities. For example, has the Minister anything to say—it is part of the whole question of saving and an improved flow of traffic—about the special wardens employed by Westminster. I am sure that if they do their job properly, and are allowed to do their job properly, that would be at least as good a saving as Autoguide—and I mean on top of, not instead of.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, regarding rat runs. I believe that the Dutch say that when you enter a residential area you should consider yourself a visitor; and we should all have some respect for that view. I do not think the noble Lord used the words "rat runs" but he said that if the roads are available they should be used. Rather than have roads blocked at one end, or a combination of that and one way streets, I would prefer that certain roads were not included in the Autoguide scheme. That is why I believe it is imperative that local authorities should be involved in decisions. The local authorities are closer to people who hear that their road is to be included in a scheme and the people can protest to them. It is a closer democratic link with the problem than one would get—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I certainly did not refer to rat runs. 1 was speaking about the better utilisation of the road system and I leave it at that. I do not believe that roadways are necessarily for playing in or for car parking. They are part of the transportation system. All I am looking for is the best utilisation of the roadways and the road networks.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sorry. I appreciate now what the noble Lord was saying. I believe that it is a great pity that we have lost the roads for children to play in. They were part of the growing-up process and they were a great help to many children. I was staggered by the increase in traffic and by the information given by the Minister. I believe he said that there are now 31·5 million licences. Every time one looks at the figure it is increasing. There is no playing in the roads now. I believe that there is a point at which local authorities should be involved in order to give guidance as regards the kinds of roads that should be used for road space, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We know what we mean when we say that a road is a residential road or otherwise. I can see a much beleaguered Minister finding difficulties with the centre of a big city and deciding to open up roads when local residents and the local authorities find it to be quite wrong.
I believe that we shall have an interesting Committee stage. With the points made by the Minister and those that he will conclude with, perhaps we shall not require full Notes on Clauses, but I believe that we need one or two as regards HGVs and the licensing part. There are one or two very difficult concepts to be dealt with. Other than that, I wish the Bill all the best.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our debate today has been both wide-ranging and constructive. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and who have raised so many important and topical issues. I am also grateful for the general welcome that the Bill has received this afternoon. I shall be able to say a little about the Government's position on these issues as I now attempt to respond to the main points that have been made. Many detailed points have been made as well and I cannot promise to answer them today. I have no doubt that some of the issues will return at the Committee stage. I can tell noble Lords that full Notes on Clauses will be available tomorrow which I hope will assist noble Lords.
Our debate started with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and though he welcomed the Bill, he implied that in addition he would have liked to have had legislation concerning the Horne Report and the North Report. Perhaps I may briefly say something on those two subjects.
The Government are committed to introducing legislation at a suitable opportunity to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act along the lines recommended in the Horne Report. We fully accept the strength of the case for early legislation, but pressures on the legislative programme make it impossible to give a commitment to any particular Session. We shall continue to seek an opportunity to introduce the Bill.
However, the time has not been wasted. Utilities, highway authorities and .the department have been doing essential development work on fleshing out the bones provided by the Horne Report. Agreement on contentious issues has been reached. As regards the North Report, as your Lordships will be aware, it was published in April of this year and it contains 137 recommendations. We considered it essential to seek the views of interested organisations before reaching final conclusions. We aim to announce them in the New Year and legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
I turn now to points that have been raised on Part I of the Bill. I shall attempt to deal with those before turning to the motor cycling provisions at the end of Part I, and finally to the subject of the Autoguide. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we would need further legislation if we were not dependent upon the second EC Directive. The Commission has now submitted the text of a draft second directive to the Council of Ministers and detailed negotiations will begin next year. We shall need additional powers if the council does not agree to our proposals for small goods vehicles and minibuses containing up to 17 seats. Noble Lords may be aware that that is a very topical issue. However, this can be effected by regulations under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about consultations with the TUC on Part I of the Bill. Officials of my department recently met TUC officials and representatives of the affiliated unions. I believe that the meeting helped to clear up a number of concerns. As regards the retention of badges for bus drivers which was a matter raised by my noble friend

1061
Lord Teviot in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the provision of PSV drivers' badges is a matter for regulations. There will be full consultation on this aspect of driver licensing before any changes are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether the loss of a goods vehicle licence would mean the loss of an ordinary licence. It will not. The loss of a goods or passenger-carrying licence will not necessarily result in the loss of the ordinary entitlement. The Secretary of State will have power to revoke the vocational element without removing the ordinary entitlement. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked why the definition of passenger-carrying vehicles is in Schedule 2. That schedule inserts a new Part IV in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Schedule 3(9) also inserts the same definition in Section 108 which provides for the interpretation of Part III as regards ordinary driving licences.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sought an assurance that the standards of vocational driving would not be lowered. That certainly would not be our aim at all. Road safety will remain the primary object of driver licensing. There is no intention to lower the standards for vocational driving. There is no real change in the Bill to the actual tests that have to be taken.
As regards the question of medical evidence for changes in the duration of entitlement (a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill) it is commonly agreed in the medical profession that the mid-40s is the time when serious medical conditions begin to appear. This is borne out by the cases coming before our medical advisers in Swansea. It is essential that drivers of large vehicles with such medical conditions are identified at the earliest moment. Public service vehicle drivers already have regular medical checks from the age of 46 years. The new arrangement will bring the drivers of large goods vehicles into line with that policy.
My noble friend Lord Lucas complained about the time taken for issuing licences by the DVLC. Ninety per cent. of driving licence transactions are dealt with by the DVLC within six days. On average traffic areas take about 20 days to deal with HGV or PSV transactions. I expect unification to lead to a quicker service for new lorry and bus drivers. My noble friend also asked whether drivers who had passed the test for large goods or passenger-carrying vehicles would be able to drive before full licences are granted by Swansea. The answer is yes because the drivers will have the benefit of the existing provisions in Part III.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron asked whether the United Kingdom intended to seek derogation from the proposed directive on driver licensing. No, my Lords; the Government support the idea of licence harmonisation. We shall be pressing the Commission to make some changes in the negotiations on the directive, but the directive may permit different national approaches on certain matters.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked whether car drivers should be subject to the same medical checks as vocational drivers. My answer is, no. Drivers of ordinary cars are required by law to report any
1062
medical conditions that affect their ability to drive. Because of the serious consequences of a collapse at the wheel of a lorry or a bus, tighter controls are needed for vocational drivers. My noble friend also asked whether existing exemptions in regulations would be continued under the new system. Provision for exemption from vocational entitlement will be made in the light of consultation and to the extent permitted by the second directive.
My noble friends Lady Macleod and Lord Balfour and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred to the possibility of mandatory eyesight testing. My noble friend suggested that the Bill should make driving with defective eyesight a criminal offence, or at any rate should require one to have a test certificate. As the existing rules stand, a motorist must at all times meet a standard of visual acuity equivalent to an ability to read a vehicle number plate from a distance of 75 feet for characters 3½ inches high.
Drivers are required to notify DVLC if they become aware of any eyesight condition which affects their ability to drive. Some 60 cases are referred to the centre each day for investigation. Where necessary, arrangements are made for specialist eyesight examinations. Research studies have not identified poor eyesight as a significant factor in accidents. There is no evidence to suggest that the present arrangements are failing to meet the requirements for road safety.
All of us who drive are already obliged to notify the DVLC if our health deteriorates in a way that could affect our ability to drive. That applies just as much to eyesight as to any other problem. The beauty of the number plate test to which I have just referred is that it is something any of us can check at any time we want.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron asked whether car drivers who are disqualified should be required to take a professional driving test. The disqualification is itself the penalty. Drivers who are required to take a second test are required to prove that they are up to the level of competence needed for cars. It would be unfair to expect such drivers to reach a higher standard than is expected of ordinary car drivers.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked about delays after the test for the issue of the licence. This is covered by the existing Road Traffic Act, which allows a person who passes a test to drive while his full licence is being issued. This will not change, but the application for the licence must be made within two years. Under the new system this will also apply to vocational drivers. The question of delays in traffic areas is being looked into to see what can be done in the short term. In the longer term, the position should improve when the operations are transferred to DVLC.
My noble friend also asked whether drivers of school buses would be exempt from the higher medical and test standards. They are at present exempt from PSV licensing. This exemption will have to be reconsidered in the light of the second directive and consultations on implementing the regulations. My noble friend also asked about driving after an absence of 10 years. Possession of a licence does not of itself ensure that the holder is driving the vehicle in

1063
question. Some drivers never sit behind a wheel once they have passed the test. The 10-year rule can be unfair on drivers who leave the country and return after some years. A requirement to pass a second test is not compatible with long period licensing.
My noble friend Lady Macleod asked what would become of the international driving licence. It will still remain and will be necessary when visiting certain countries which are not EC members and do not recognise our licences. The new licence will be recognised in all other member states of the EC. No transactions will be required when using it in any of those countries. My noble friend Lady Macleod asked about what happens when people pass the test now. They are given a piece of paper. This is already provided for and will continue. A certificate is given to a successful candidate and a notice of failure to an unsuccessful candidate. It is my understanding that a certificate of passing and a provisional licence is the equivalent of a full driving licence.
I should like to deal now with the distinct subject of the motorcycle test. I am glad that this has been widely welcomed in the House. However, there were one or two causes for concern with which 1 should like to attempt to deal. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Strathcarron touched on the sufficiency of training facilities. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, there are more than 900 training centres throughout the country. If all those currently involved in training continue under the new system there should be adequate coverage. However, as it will now become compulsory, it is quite possible that more will open up.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about monitoring of the compulsory training scheme. I can assure him that it will be monitored not just in terms of casualties but also with regard to the standard of the training. The noble Lord asked whether the Secretary of State will specify the charges trainees may have to pay. My noble friend Lord Lucas also touched on this subject. Clause 6(2)(c) gives power to make regulations, and that includes the power to specify any charges that may be payable by those undertaking training.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Lucas were concerned about the length of the compulsory training course. They mentioned the fact that it might be eight hours or a full day. They suggested that that would not be enough to teach new riders all they need to know to survive in today's traffic conditions.
The basic training course we propose can provide only a minimum level of training but that is far more than the majority of new riders receive at present. However, under this provision all new riders will be put in the hands of experienced training instructors. Together with the new, more exacting pursuit style riding test, further training to bring riders up to the required standard will become more desirable. I should also like to explain that the compulsory training will not only be off-road. It will also include road riding under the guidance of training instructors. I should point out that, although the basic course may last only one day, the rider must get a certificate at the end of the course. If he does not
1064
achieve that in one day he will have to train for longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, queried whether motorcyclists will have to submit their certificate of training with their provisional licence application. Riders will already have received their provisional licence before they are able to undertake the compulsory training. Several noble Lords mentioned the need for teaching defensive riding skills. We indeed recognise the need for such skills to be taught. The compulsory training course will include some of the necessary defensive riding techniques which will have to be grasped before trainees undertake the on-road element of the course. If riders take further training, as we hope they will, this will give training organisations further opportunity to instil in riders all the skills necessary to ride safely.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron mentioned the motorcycle industry's call today for motorcycle dealers to ensure that new riders receive training. We very much welcome this statement which asks dealers to do all they can to persuade new riders to be trained—prior to the compulsion which will be introduced in due course.
My noble friend also suggested that car drivers, like motor bicycle riders, should also have to undergo compulsory training. But, unlike motorbike riders, most car drivers—I believe 95 per cent—already take professional instruction. So we see no need to introduce similar provision for them. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve asked whether the Highway Code would be taught to riders as part of the compulsory training course. I can assure her that important elements of the Highway Code, such as correct procedures on left and right turns, will be included in the course.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill and the Autoguide clauses. I was glad that the system was also generally welcomed this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wondered whether the widespread use of Autoguide would simply increase the amount of traffic on our roads, coming into London for instance, and hence add to congestion.
We do not believe that that will be the case. It is possible that some drivers, especially private motorists, could find that Autoguide gives them the reassurance to make journeys which they would not otherwise undertake by car. The market for Autoguide is likely to be concentrated largely among fleet operators and those who drive for business reasons. Commercial and business drivers rarely have any choice about whether to make a particular journey; their work demands that they do. The great benefit of Autoguide is that it will give them the best routes for essential journeys and allow them to avoid the traffic jams which can cause so much delay and frustration.
I would not pretend that we can foresee precisely how a commercial Autoguide system will evolve. That is why we propose that the system should be implemented gradually, starting with a pilot scheme which can be fully evaluated. At the moment, however, I think that we should all be encouraged by the TRRL's estimates, which I have already quoted and which have again been referred to this afternoon, of the average journey time reduction of 10 per cent.

1065
As regards the local authority involvement in establishing the Autoguide system, earlier this month the Department of Transport wrote to all the local authority associations inviting their comments upon the possible role of local authorities in the arrangements for evaluating the proposed Autoguide pilot scheme in London. Officials will be discussing that aspect with the associations next week. We believe that it is most important for the relevant local highway authorities to have the opportunity to be involved in the detailed assessment of the pilot scheme, since this will play a large part in determining the operating framework for subsequent commercial schemes.
As regards the question of whether the Government should fund local authority monitoring of Autoguide, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Bill does not provide for the Government to fund such monitoring. We see no reason to make such special arrangements. However, we are discussing with local authorities how they might be involved in monitoring the proposed pilot scheme. The department is making available considerable resources for research and evaluation of the pilot scheme through the TRRL.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised certain questions about Clause 10. He referred to the Secretary of State's power to collect charges from users and he mentioned various other points in relation to that clause. The fact that those provisions are in Clause 10 does not necessarily mean that they will be used in every licence which my right honourable friend issues to the operator; they are designed to allow sufficient flexibility for my right honourable friend to negotiate and agree appropriate licences in each case. We must bear in mind that these systems are in their infancy and they must have adequate provision to deal with future developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was worried that the definition, "Driver Information Systems", might include ordinary mapmakers. I can assure him that the Bill will not lead to the makers of road atlases requiring a special licence. Moreover, the Bill provides power for my right honourable friend to exclude particular systems from the licensing requirement if inclusion would be inappropriate. So there is the flexibility to ensure that licensing is not unnecessarily applied.
The noble Lord was also concerned that it might lead to more holes in the road. We must of course strike a balance; we must minimise so far as is possible the burden of extra street works. But we must also do what is necessary to facilitate the provision of such new systems, which could offer great benefits to many motorists, including that of avoiding other roadworks.
The ability of the licensed operator of a driver information system to undertake street works will be tightly defined. He will be bound by the street works code in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 in just the same way as existing statutory undertakers such as BT. The Secretary of State will have power to impose conditions in an operator's licence specifying, for example, the roads upon which apparatus cannot be installed.
1066
Finally on this subject I turn to the fears which have been expressed that the Autoguide system may result in "rat running". We have no reason to think that Autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic on minor roads. Main roads generally offer quicker journey times. The problem is often choosing the right main road, which is exactly where Autoguide can help by giving advance warning of congestion. But the large-scale pilot scheme, to which I have already referred and upon which we shall shortly be inviting private sector proposals, will allow the Department of Transport to evaluate in detail the likely effects of a commercial system, including the effects on minor roads. As I have said, we hope to involve individual highway authorities in the monitoring arrangements. However, as I think my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, there are indeed many other means of controlling rat runs and evidence of that can be seen in nearby Pimlico. Indeed I think that that was a good example.
I hope that I have answered the main points which have been raised this afternoon. However there were very many and I have no doubt that we shall encounter some others in Committee. But in the meantime I am grateful for the reception that the Bill has received in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the three sets of draft regulations before us are concerned first with the exclusion from civil legal aid of actions raised under the simple new small claims procedure; secondly, with increasing the financial limit of legal advice and assistance including assistance by way of representation (ABWOR) work which solicitors may undertake without prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board; and thirdly with clarification of the criteria to be applied to the provision of ABWOR. They will enable solicitors to proceed more quickly with legal aid work. These improvements, which have been developed in consultation with the Law Societ y of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board, demonstrate our commitment to an effective and efficient system.
I shall now take each of the draft regulations in a little more detail. The Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988 exempt small claims processes from civil legal aid by extending the list of excepted proceedings at Part II of Schedule 2 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. The small claims procedure, which is the subject of the Small Claims (Scotland) Order 1988, came into effect on 30th November. The procedure is straightforward and is designed to be operated by a claimant without the need for assistance from a solicitor. Proceedings are

1067
to be conducted in an informal manner and the claimant should be able adequately to pursue his or her case in person without a lawyer. We are however providing that civil legal aid should be available for small claims appeals, since these must relate to points of law and be made to the sheriff principal. Moreover if a case is remitted into conventional summary cause of ordinary cause procedure legal aid will at that point be available.
The Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988 will increase from £60 to £150 the financial limit on the cost of legal advice and assistance (including ABWOR) which a solicitor may undertake without the prior approval of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, subject to certain specified criteria. This provision clearly will enable solicitors to proceed more quickly than before with work in the important and urgent areas specified.
The Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 correct an omission in the amendment regulations which came into force last August. Criteria applying to the availability of ABWOR are applied also to the extensions of such availability made by the August regulations. The opportunity has also been taken to consolidate those regulations for the convenience of practitioners.
We have made a further significant improvement to the provision of civil legal aid in the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1988 which came into force on 30th November. Those regulations enable the Scottish Legal Aid Board to make legal aid available under specified circumstances for work carried out as a matter of urgency, thereby streamlining further that important part of the legal aid system. Those regulations also exempted from recovery by the board certain small, vital articles of property belonging to an applicant which have been successfully recovered with the benefit of legal aid from poinding under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations which conform closely to the statement made in another place by his honourable friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. No objections were made from my side of the House. I have looked to see whether anyone else had any comments to make. The department obviously consulted widely before it tabled the regulations for which there has been general agreement. I am pleased to accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd November be approved [1st report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Package Travel: ECC Report
6.12 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Package Travel (20th Report, 1987-88, HL Paper 107).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I rise to move the Motion, some of your Lordships may wonder why that task falls to me. There may be those who recall the story of the counsel and the judge. The counsel was pleased to hear the judge say that of all the counsel opening a case, he would prefer him to any other. Greatly gratified, counsel ventured to ask to what he was indebted for the compliment. "It is always interesting", said the judge, "to see which of two fresh minds first grasps the point of the case." I am not wholly uninformed on this matter. That is not due to any of my own efforts but because I have had the advantage of an excellent briefing by our committee staff and from the learned Mrs. Eileen Denza, the committee's legal adviser. In addition, there was stimulating discussion within Subcommittee E.Cuius minima pars sum.
Reference to that committee leads me to a sad note. Your Lordships will see a list of the Members of the sub-committee responsible for the report at page 25. The names include that of the late Lord Silkin with the sad note recording his decease. Sam Silkin was a friend of mine for many years, from student days in the Middle Temple. He was a man of varied and versatile achievement, in Parliament (both Houses), at the Bar as Queen's Counsel and in government. He brought distinction to all he did. It could fairly be said nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. We mourn his loss and cherish his memory.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that we have the advantage of a mass of expert evidence, much of it oral and therefore subject to the salutory process of cross-examination. There is an impressive list at Appendix 2 of the witnesses and those they represented. Appendix 3 has an intriguing glossary of acronyms, as they are called. Some of the abbreviations in that glossary will be familiar, others less so. Indeed they might be suitable for parlour

1069
games this Christmas—guessing what those curious acronyms mean.
The report deals with package travel, a relatively new term. Travel had different connotations in earlier times. It was a traditional part of the English way of life, but only for the privileged. Indeed, for many, part of the attraction of travel in those days was to get away from fellow English. Your Lordships may recall a saying of Laurence Sterne:
"An Englishman does not travel to see Englishmen".
The basic attractions in those days were, on the aesthetic side, scenery, art and architecture; and on the corporeal side, the delights of food, wine and a warmer climate. Two hundred years ago Horace Walpole wrote to his friend Sir Horace Mann in Naples:
"Here in England, summer has broken out with its customary severity".
In case your Lordships may think plus ca change plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, that was a century before Thomas Cook, the first and greatest of the travel agents, started his package tours and with them the democratisation of travel. Of course, democratisation of travel is welcome—a sign of progress and important in the life of the citizen. There is a passage quoted in the report from the National Consumer Council's memorandum:
"For most people holidays are the high spot of the calendar. They represent a brief respite from the working week, an opportunity to recharge batteries and to relax with one's families. They are expensive and normally require saving for throughout the year. For these reasons expectations are high and the people who sell holidays market dreams".
The price of progress is the problems. There again, in the same memorandum the problems are described by the National Consumer Council in these words:
"Changed hotels or resorts, overbooked aircraft, lost baggage and brochure descriptions about non-existent swimming pools are all matters which should give rise to compensation. When things go wrong on a holiday the distress is often greater than if similar misfortune beset the consumer at home. A bad holiday can never be put right".
The existence of these problems and the desire to pursue progress have resulted in the initiative of the Commission, which in turn results in this report. The draft directive of the Commission is identified at the start of the report, sub nomine 5382/88. Your Lordships will not find the text of the directive in the report but it is available in the Printed Paper Office. Some of the key articles are set out in the report. I understand that it is not normal practice, though permitted, to incorporate the text of directives in reports thereon, though perhaps it is a good practice in many cases.
That being the background of the matter, these questions seem to arise: first, is the Community legislation necessary in this context or at any rate desirable? If the answer to that is yes, then, secondly, is the directive as proposed by the Commission procedurally correct; or if not, can it be made so? Thirdly, is the proposed content satisfactory and, in so far as it is not, can it be made so?
On the first question, the answer would seem to be, yes. There is a general unanimity of view in regard to this major question. Your Lordships will see in the report:
1070
"Virtually all witnesses agreed that there was a good case for Council legislation to establish common rules for the protection of package travellers."
This would seem to be a fairly obvious conclusion in a matter so essentially international as travel. The reasons are set out in rather more detail in the text of paragraph 9 on page 9 of the evidence part of the report.
The answer to the first question being yes, the second question arises as to the legal basis and procedural propriety. The report analyses the legal basis of the proposed directive and concludes that it is incorrect. It should be based, we thought, on Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome and not, as proposed, on Article 100A under the amending Act. The reasons for that are given in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the report. It is not a mere technical consideration. It is important because, as your Lordships know, directives based on Article 100 require unanimity in the Council before they can become effective, whereas those based, as suggested here by the Commission, on Article 100A require only a qualified majority in the Council.
The committee is vigilant on questions of the correct legal base and on maintaining the proper distinction between Articles 100 and 100A. However, although this is always important in principle, it is less important in practice in this case than in many others because there is a recognised need for Community legislation which can be made procedurally correct.
I come then to the third question as to the content. The basic answer as to content can be found in the summary of conclusions at paragraph 72 of the report. It reads:
"Although the package travel industry has been very successful, consumers now want and are ready to pay for a better service. The package traveller is economically vulnerable and needs greater legal protection. There is a good case for Community legislation".
Many of the articles in the directive are important, in particular Article 3 dealing with brochures and advertising matter, Article 4 dealing with forms of contract, and Article 5 dealing with liability.
Advertising and brochures are a very important part of package travel. Travellers are dependent upon them and are at risk. These matters are dealt with in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the committee's report. It is agreed that what is proposed in the directive is reasonable and strikes a fair balance.
Travel contracts are dealt with in Article 4, which is described in the committee's report as the heart of the matter. It gives the consumer four basic rights which are listed in paragraph 23 of our report. The rights the consumer would have, which are set out in the report and which your Lordships have before you, should do much to help on this basic matter. Paragraph 23 states:
"Article 4 may be regarded as the heart of the Directive. The Commission's draft goes most of the way towards prescribing a compulsory standard form of written contract for package travel. The consumer is given rights of four kinds: a right to transfer his booking if he is prevented from travelling for serious reasons, a limited protection against surcharges, a right to withdraw if agreed terms are altered and a right to alternative services and compensation if, after departure, there is a significant deficiency in the services promised".
I draw the attention of your Lordships to the reference to standard forms of contract in particular.

1071
I regard that as a very welcome and important innovation. I have some experience of standard forms of contract, not in the case of package travel but in building contracts. Indeed, come early next year my nice legal publishers will be celebrating—not of course in this Chamber, but just along the corridor—the jubilee of the work on that subject with which I am associated. I certainly hope to see some of your Lordships present on what I hope will be an interesting and agreeable occasion. Noble Lords will be cordially welcome at that event.
The relevance of the experience in standard forms of building contract does not of course lie in any similarity of subject matter with package holidays, but because it shows that standard forms of contract do not necessarily imply any rigidity. In the case of building forms of contract, many new variations within the standard form have been prescribed to cater for new methods and new circumstances. In that respect, that may be a precedent for the standard forms of contract which are recommended for the travel industry.
There are many other matters referred to and analysed in the report. I need not go into them in further detail as the report is summarised at Part 4 on page 24. The summary is concise but comprehensive. Your Lordships will see the various recommendations, not only those that endorse the recommendations of the Commission but also as regards certain matters in which an amendment is desirable and should be sought for and I hope obtained.
The summary as set out in the report is, as I have said, concise but comprehensive. That being so, I think it would be as well to follow the advice of an eminent and well-loved parliamentarian who posed the following question:
"Why peer into the crystal when you can read the book"?
Perhaps noble Lords would do better to follow Aneurin Bevan's advice and study the matter in the book, rather than rely on what would necessarily only be a paraphrase on my part. With that, I commend the report to noble Lords, and with diffidence and great respect I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Package Travel (20th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 107).—(Lord Broxbourne.)
6.35 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to follow the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, in this debate. I am very grateful for the gentle way in which he led us into this debate. I am absolutely certain that everyone in the House will, like me, have read the report. But we will not have had the benefit of the pleasure that I sense members of the committee had in taking part in the committee proceedings. When I look at the quality of the members of Sub-Committee E, I am very impressed. I also echo the sadness of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, as regards the passing of our dear colleague Lord Silkin of Dulwich during the passage of the inquiry.
1072
My stance will be primarily that of supporting the thrust of the directive and of the report of your Lordships' committee. Someone has referred to something as being the best thing since sliced bread. I think the package holiday is the best thing since sliced bread. Millions of people have been able not only to have a holiday with a difference—that is, with sunshine—but have also been able to enjoy those holidays over many years.
My first package holiday was about 20 years ago. For two weeks in June I paid the princely sum of £49 to go to Austria. I was horror-struck when the next year the price had rocketed to £72 to go to Yugoslavia.
The package tour has a great deal to commend it. It is well worth looking at what the committee said in the report on page 18, paragaph 49, when it stated:
"The package travel industry has been highly successful. Over the last thirty years tour operators and travel agents have made it easy and affordable for millions of Europeans to holiday abroad, and there is every reason to suppose that the numbers will continue to rise. On any long-term analysis this has contributed to raising the standard of living and promoting closer relations between peoples—both fundamental objectives of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community".
I hope we can start with the generally accepted premise that we are looking at a success story; that is the establishment of what we now know as the package holiday industry. But we are equally entitled to be very critical of the way in which some aspects of it are bringing the business into disrepute. At the end of the exercise we want not only to improve the lot of the travelling public but also to improve the strength of the business and to extend the benefits of holiday travel to many more people.
In this country I understand we are talking about a number of anything up to 20 million package travel holidays which are arranged in any one year. We are talking in terms of very big business. But we are not talking in terms of a monolithic business. There are little tour operators and little travel agents, and there are big tour operators and big travel agents. I declare an interest through my association with the Co-Operative movement, which last year in its 180 shops provided package holidays for 250,000 customers.
One of our businesses, the Ilkeston Co-op, in one shop sells more than 50,000 holidays a year—the biggest single travel shop in the country. Equally, there are some areas where there are no shops. It is a disparate type of business. We are considering the impact of that business on people's lives, health and happiness.
For the most part I shall ask questions, but it is interesting to be able to be fair about the extent of complaints which have been made. There is evidence which would alarm the reader about the number of package holidaymakers who come back dissatisfied with their lot. Yet, in the evidence submitted by ABTA (published on page 53 of the report), there is a quotation from a survey entitled Europeans and their Holidays which was produced by the Directorate-General of Transport (Tourism) of the Commission of the EC. The point is made in the report as to whether that is more up to date and therefore more relevant than some of the statistics used by others.

1073
That survey, as Members of this House will have noted, shows that:
"The overall picture is one of a very high degree of satisfaction. On a scale of one to 10 (10 being 'completely pleased') respondents gave an average rating of 8.17 for their main holidays in 1985 and, if they had been away more than once, of 8.28 for their other holidays".
Again on page 53 it says that:
"The draft should therefore, in our view, be considered against the true background which is that some 85 per cent. of holidaymakers in the EEC are satisfied with their holidays and furthermore there is a slightly higher rate of satisfaction on holidays organised by tour operators and/or travel agents".
I am delighted to note that the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Burton, are present and will be taking part in the debate. They are closer than I am to the issues because of their experience, service and commitment to this particular subject. I hope that they might help me in considering how we can reconcile what appears not to be irreconcilable but which causes a problem. To be fair, the committee points out in its report that there is a dichotomy. I should welcome some observations on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, referred to page 24 of the report and the summary of conclusions. 1 shall use that in part to make some other points.
We are discussing an industry which is subject, as are many others in 1988, to new phenomena. One of the phenomena that the travel business had to face this year arose because ABTA held its annual conference in Israel. Last year it held the conference in Austria, the year before it was in Australia and next year it will be held in Mexico. Yet when ABTA decided to hold its conference in Israel it was subjected, and its members as individual companies were subjected, to what I consider to be absolutely outrageous treatment by the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Perhaps I may tell the House what people conducting the kind of business we are discussing tonight had to suffer. They were told in a letter from the PLO:
"This office has already circulated a list of conference sponsors to representatives of the two million strong Muslim community in Britain asking them to boycott such firms. Consideration is now being given to extending the boycott to firms sending delegates to the convention".
I think that that is deplorable.
"By holding the conference there (that is Israel), ABTA is abandoning its political stance and siding with Israel and recognising its rule, against the position of the British government. Accepting Israeli sponsorship makes this all the worse, opening ABTA to charges of having its conscience and reputation bought … By going to Jerusalem, ABTA is boosting Israeli tourism and undercutting the impact of the Palestinian uprising. This is wholly unacceptable and will not be forgiven by Palestinians, the Arabs or the Muslim world in general".
In a debate in which we are discussing not only the welfare of the traveller but also the viability of the business I take this opportunity to point out that although many things have changed in the nature of the business, we could do without pressures of that kind on a business which is fiercely competitive.
When one looks at what the British holidaymakers get for their money I know that there will be no dispute that the British package holiday provider
1074
offers his product more cheaply than anyone else, if not in the world certainly in Europe. These are people who fly from Gatwick to Portugal and people who fly from Cologne to Portugal. The people who fly from Cologne will pay between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. more for exactly the same holiday. That is a product of the efficiency and organisation of the British travel business in general, as well as of some of the concentrations of power in other countries.
I ask the House to pay particular attention to some of the special points which I wish to draw to the notice of the Government. As I understand it, in laying greater responsibilities on the travel industry and by setting out in precise terms who is covered by those responsibilities one excludes from those responsibilities other people who provide package holidays. For example, paragraph 66 on page 21 says:
"There is no difficulty about imposing on the tour operator a duty of professional care in the selection and supervision of contractors to perform the services making up the package, and requiring compensation for any breach of that duty".
Paragraph 66(i) states:
"There is no obvious reason why the package traveller should be placed in a better position than his neighbour who booked his travel directly".
Yet when one turns over the page and looks at paragraph 66(ii) one sees that:
"In respect of deficiencies attributable to a hotel owner or his servants, the tour operator should be strictly liable".
The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, or the Minister may be able to clarify the position. Is it the case, as I understand it, that in future there will be planeloads of travellers, some of whom will be package tourists and some of whom will not and some of whom will be covered by the directive and some of whom will not? If that is the position, is it what we want? If it is not what we want I should like the Minister to tell us what the Government have in mind, because we have before us the views of the Commission, of the committee, of the House and, more importantly, of the Government. The Government in time will have to be precise and tell this House and others what they intend to do.
There is then the question of strict liability, which the report itself said was perhaps the greatest of the issues that needed to be resolved. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has gone into print in a letter that I saw in a newspaper, pointed out that a sum of 23p (I believe that is the figure she used, and I have seen a figure of around 2 francs in the report) will give the kind of cover that is needed. We are talking in terms of coppers. That is all that is required to give the comprehensive cover which is not currently available.
Yet when I approached ABTA and asked for its views on this matter I was told that when it comes to a question of liability one first of all needs to establish the market. There has to be an insurable product. I look directly at the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, at this point. He has an interest in the building industry. Perhaps he will recall the dilemma that occurred when the Government produced a Housing Bill about five years ago which removed from local councils their sole right to give building permission and allowed it to go to architects, engineers and elsewhere. When a quotation from the insurance

1075
world was sought and a view requested as to what it would be prepared to charge for cover of that kind, enormous difficulties were raised which have lasted until this day.
I ask the House whether all that we need to envisage is an on-cost per holiday in the region of 20p or 30p? Or are we looking at something in France, which is the source of the quotation, that is not directly comparable to that which the directive asks us to concede? I suspect not. ABTA has given to other noble Lords as well as to me—the figures were not given exclusively to me—an indication that its best estimate of the cost, if it can obtain that cover, is between £5 and £15. Let us say it is £10. It is not a sum that will spoil any holiday.
In the report a great deal has been made about the willingness of holiday-makers to pay more for their holiday. Where is the evidence for that? It is not in the report. A statement is made by the Consumers' Association that people are prepared to pay more for their holidays, but where is the evidence for that? I have not seen it. There has been a vast increase in the number of holidays taken, but the majority are being bought at the lower end of the market and not the middle or higher end. I should like someone to answer my question. If there is a directive and this kind of cover has to be carried, the industry will be faced with a dilemma. What is it likely to cost and what will it cover?
On page 141 of the report there is an interesting piece of evidence from Mason-Bond which says that it writes on behalf of the International Leisure Group. It points to the kind of circumstances for which cover will have to be carried in some form or another. It lists some of the things that can happen in an hotel—events to which nobody can give any forethought or for which they can take any responsibility. In the context, if these events are not acts of God they are nonetheless totally unforeseen incidents.
For instance, in the resort the local authority commenced roadworks outside the hotel. How can one hold a tour operator responsible for discomfort or hurt arising from such an event? I should like the Minister to tell me that that is not what is meant. However, if it is meant, perhaps the House will agree that it is onerous, punitive and unfair to lay the blame on anybody, let alone the tour operators. Then there are the quiet owners of the separate hotel next door who begin work to add an extra storey to their building. When I read these illustrations I understood that they were direct complaints by returned holidaymakers. There is the example of a guest in the hotel who gets drunk and becomes offensive, or the possibility of a waiter accidentally dropping soup on a customer. How can one possibly say to the tour operator or travel agent that he is responsible.
A great deal is made of the warranty of the tour operator. How can one expect anyone to carry a warranty in respect of actions of a third party?
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who is very experienced in these matters, will help the House and me in particular at some later stage. I am conscious of the time and of the fact that other noble
1076
Lords wish to speak in this debate. I believe that the travel industry warmly welcomes both the directive and the report. There are however some very real problems faced by the travel industry if it is to stay in business and continue to provide in the future the kind of services that it has given to consumers in this country in the past.
6.56 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that we on these Benches favour any ideas or concepts which lead to further harmonisation of all kinds of activities in Europe. As regards package travel, package holidays and package tours we feel that there is definitely room for European legislation in some respects. Indeed that is reflected in the very excellent and clear report. I congratulate the members of your Lordships' committee, some of whom I see in the Chamber today, for having put the issues so clearly. It is very welcome to someone like myself who, at least in the context of debates in your Lordships' House, is new to the subject of travel and the way in which package travel will develop in the coming years, particularly with our growing participation in Europe.
When I read the report it seemed to me that there was an immediate difficulty—and other noble Lords may touch upon it—which is that in the 12 countries of the European Community there are different legal systems. So far as I know, in this country at present there is no statute covering package travel which is subject to the normal laws of contract, tort and so on. I understand that in other countries the situation is somewhat different. That therefore is one of the problems that have to be tackled.
There is also a very different pattern of travel in this country. From the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, who said that he booked a package tour for £49 some time ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Twenty years, my Lords.
The Viscount of Falkland:—I venture to suggest that in this country we were perhaps in the vanguard of the development of package travel, especially at the bottom and cheaper end of the market. The point was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the level of satisfaction registered is very high. I do not quite know how the figures for levels of satisfaction mentioned in the report were obtained, but they are very encouraging and I have no reason to doubt them.
If 85 per cent. of travellers who go on a package tour are satisfied and feel that they have had a better holiday than they would have had had they travelled independently and without the services of the tour operator, it means that there is an extraordinary proportion of satisfaction. Nevertheless, there is always the problem—and it is highly publicised—of disappointment. There is no doubt that the traveller's disappointment gets publicity. It is one of the areas attacked by this proposed legislation of the draft directive.
I think that in many ways the draft overkills. It takes a number of aspects of travel and proposes

1077
various types of legislation to cover these aspects of travel, and in particular brochures. When somebody who is of limited means decides to save up to go on a holiday, presumably the first thing that he does is to get hold of a brochure if before that he has not got the recommendation of a friend who has gone on a similar holiday. In the past, brochures have been subject to criticism. However, in my experience in recent years brochures are well produced and fairly clear.
I am worried about the small print, as other noble Lords will he, because people do not read brochures carefully. They are cleverly produced with lots of pictures, and people tend to look at the pictures rather than at the small print. That has been dealt with very well by the Association of British Travel Agents. One does not want to put too great a straitjacket on tour companies in the preparation of their brochures. They should be clear, and they should offer the holiday in clear terms and not give misleading information. Although the package tours on which I have been have been of a specialised nature, I have looked at other brochures and have found them by and large to be satisfactory and attractive.
Another area covered in the draft directive is the right to transfer. This is something that has always been a bother and has worried people, and is subject to an enormous amount of complication. If you ask a travel agent—or a tour operator, if you deal directly—whether you may transfer, he suggests to you that you should take out various insurances and make certain arrangements in order to avoid loss as a result of transferring. I understand that the draft directive will deal with that and will lay down exactly what transfers may be available to travellers.
That seems to be a sensible road on which to proceed. There again I suggest that this will give the tour operators a certain amont of anxiety, with a number of the other suggestions in the draft directive. There is no doubt that all tour operators can comply with anything with which they are required to comply, but at the end of the day it is the cost of producing a product for the traveller which covers all these elements. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned surcharges. I should also be interested to hear the remarks of other noble Lords on the subject of surcharges.
Surcharges have had a lot of publicity over the years. There is no doubt that there has been quite a lot of abuse of surcharges. There was a lot of abuse of surcharges over a particular period when there were large fluctuations in the price of aviation fuel. A number of operators took advantage of that and over-compensated themselves for these differences. Any way in which this can be targeted and dealt with in the long run will be to the benefit of everybody. It will harmonise and balance the relationship between the traveller and the operator, which after all is the long-term aim of this draft directive.
The one aspect which bothers most travellers and which would bother me if I were to go on one of those package tours to a sunny climate where you stay in a hotel for 10 days and you fly out in the middle of the night from Gatwick— is what care has been taken by
1078
the tour operators in his selection first of the airline or the charter company which handles the particular tour. One wonders how much care and attention have been given, and expense incurred. The more attention he pays to this, the more his expenses will go up, but it is important that he pays attention to the quality of the accommodation and to the quality of any other services included in that package.
Another important matter mentioned in the report—I cannot remember precisely where—and which has bothered me before is that at the moment protection is not offered to all those who appear on the booking form. I think protection is only offered to the proposer; the main name on the booking form. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister may be able to help me over this because I think at present there is a problem here. Often on a package tour there is a group and not all the members of that group who have to appear on that form are covered in the same way as the first name on that proposal; but I may be wrong about that. I should be grateful for the noble Lord's guidance.
To conclude, we welcome this. We think that maybe it smacks of being over-bureaucratic. However, anything that will help the consumer to have travel at the right price and of the right quality and to give him little disappointment will be welcome, and if we can increase the ratio from 85 per cent. to 95 per cent. that would be marvellous. Clearly it is this kind of result that is in the minds of those who have drafted this directive, and in principle we welcome it. I shall be most interested to hear what other noble Lords have to say, and in particular what the Minister has to say when he winds up.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for taking the trouble to explain this report so fully. I felt most hesitant about putting down my name for this debate, because it has to be said that I was totally unaware of the existence of the report until three days ago and I have not really had the chance to study it nearly as thoroughly as I should have liked, particularly as the important debate on southern Africa yesterday, in which I participated, necessitaed a great deal of preparation.
However, two factors prompted me to intervene. First of all, I do not feel that consumer protection for British package travellers is fundamentally any of the European Commission's business. It is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide. Realistically, as opposed to theoretically, it has nothing to do with facilitating the 1992 single market. I doubt whether in practice one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of British holidaymakers would travel to the Continent to start their package holidays there, especially as ours are the cheapest in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said.
I know that the Commission cites Article 100 in justification of its action. But this seems to me to be stretching Article 100 to its limits. Indeed, it is a perfect example of the obsessive harmonisation about which Professor Ralf Dahrendorf complained approximately 15 years ago. Incidentally, I note that

1079
Professor Treitel makes some critical comments on the harmonisation aspect on page 150 of the report. Monsieur Jacques Delors is doubtless delighted with this further example of the Commission's tentacles encroaching upon national sovereignty, but I do not think that your Lordships should be, and I am sure that the British people are not.
And there are practical objections as well as objections of principle. The pioneering, buccaneering, enterprising individual is essentially an Anglo-Saxon figure: I use the term "Anglo-Saxon" in its broadest sense. Since late Victorian times he has been found mainly in English-speaking countries other than our own. But to their credit this Government have tried to revive the "Stand on your own feet" principle, but it is a tender plant and there are plenty of people—not all of them in one quarter of the political spectrum—who would be only too happy to uproot it. They would rather it were supplanted by the much more collectivist Continental ethos, with its roots in Bismarckian welfarism on the one hand and Roman Catholic paternalism on the other. The legacy of Napoleonic bureaucracy may also enter into the picture.
One has only to look at the way in which contested takeover bids are regarded with horror on the Continent, and the way in which German banks—heavily involved in industry as they are; quite unlike British banks in that respect—are practically an arm of the state.
If this excessive caution, paternalism and coolness towards individualism and risk-taking had been allowed to cramp the style of the British travel trade 30 years ago, I doubt whether we would have the cheapest package holidays in Europe today, and the greatest variety—with customers able to opt for anything between the Benidorms and Ibizas of this world and the exotic, adventurous, long distance destinations like Nepal, Madagascar, Lombok or the Galapagos Islands, to name but a few.
When strict liability is imposed on manufactured goods it discourages innovation, as many noble Lords pointed out when we were discussing that topic. When strict liability is imposed upon services such as the travel trade, the same disadvantages start to manifest themselves.
The second reason for my intervention is that my work is such that my wife and I take three or four short holidays every year outside Britain rather than one or two longer ones. Over the past 25 years my family and I have had considerable experience of package holidays. Sometimes we have used the flight only and thrown away the hotel voucher. This was mainly in the days before bucket shops, which enable one to buy a heavily discounted ticket. Sometimes we have used the package hotel for the first and last nights and struck off on our own for the rest of the time. More often than not we have stayed in the hotel for an entire week. It is true that occasionally the allegedly heated swimming pool is coated with a thin film of ice or the mattresses on the beds are positively concave, but generally there are no major problems. By and large you get what you pay for.
If things do go wrong—if one of our more loutish countrymen should pour a litre of lager over your
1080
head while you are sitting by the swimming pool, or jam the swimming pool filter with superglue—how could the tour operator possibly have prevented it? That is why I agree strongly with the committee's recommendations in paragraphs 65 and 66 that strict liability be strictly limited.
As one witness points out on page 142, all-embracing strict liability as recommended by the Commission,
"means that customers will be uniquely protected from the vagaries of life while on holiday, in a way that no one is protected from the identical vagaries in their ordinary day to day life: it appears to militate against any idea that travel might be an adventure, or that part of the point of going to other countries is to experience cultures and standards which may not be the same as at home".
Apart from that, the committee and several witnesses draw attention to the absurdity of a situation—this has already been mentioned—in
which two passengers would be sitting side by side on a jumbo jet, one of whose family would be limited to Warsaw Convention levels of compensation in the event of a crash, while the family of the other could receive ten times as much if the tour operator were subject to strict liability on the flight element of the package.
There is another snag: the problems of assembling the evidence needed to prove that you have a valid claim against your tour operator in the event of things going wrong. Most of the packages that I use now are fly-drive ones, generally for a long weekend in France rather than a full week elsewhere. Normally the car provided is fine: sometimes you are lucky enough to get upgraded to a larger car at no extra cost. Occasionally you are given a car in bad condition, sometimes shockingly bad condition, as was the case with the Renault 5 supplied to me by Budget Rent-a-Car at Satolas Airport outside Lyons two and a half years ago. It would scarcely climb a 1-in-10 hill, and there are plenty of 1-in-10 hills in the Ard¹che.
Given that one does not want to waste at least half a day out of one's allotted three days' holiday in trying to find an impartial adjudicator to examine the car, there is nothing realistically that one can do. It is your word against the company's The theoretical strict liability protection is in practice mythical.
I am a little uneasy about recommendation 65(ii) that operators' strict liability should apply to all hotel accommodation the world over. We do not want to discourage operators from offering tours to Albania, Tibet or Bolivia. Provided that it would be a valid defence to warn customers in the brochure that accommodation may be both unreliable and uncomfortable, I suppose that the recommendation is just acceptable.
On the question of surcharges, I broadly agree with paragraph 63 of the report, but I cannot quite make out whether operators would be required to limit rises to the precise increases in the fuel or currency costs, as one would hope. As the Consumers' Association points out on page 11 of the minutes of evidence:
"Surcharges are out of proportion to the actual increase in costs".
In some cases they appear to be disgracefully out of proportion, on the evidence given.

1081
I agree with paragraph 61 regarding the transfer of bookings. The Commission has obviously forgotten that under IATA regulations one cannot transfer an Apex ticket. Thus one could not possibly transfer any holiday that involved a scheduled flight which was an Apex one, and most fall into that category.
The most important proposals, I think, are those relating to the quality and quantity of information to be found in the brochure put out by tour operators. In the "stand on your own feet" society that the Government are trying to encourage, it is surely right that customers should he able to opt for, let us say, very cheap holidays with pot-luck accommodation or adventurous holidays entailing a certain amount of discomfort and risk—all this provided that they are given the maximum amount of information beforehand to enable them to decide whether it is worth it.
If the holiday in question is not recommended for children under 12 or people over 70, the brochure should spell this out precisely. For more conventional holidays, the average air and sea water temperature for each month at the resort in question should be included in the brochure. I once saw a brochure that recommended Bermuda as the ideal destination for getting a winter suntan. This was a disgracefully misleading claim. The temperature in Bermuda in midwinter is scarcely higher than that in the Channel Islands.
I agree with the Commission rather than the committee that the addresses of the hotels used by the operator should he given. In this way, an intending traveller with any gumption would be able to ring up the national tourist office of the country that he proposed to visit and ask for the town plan of the resort to which he was going, from which he would be able to work out whether the hotel recommended was sited next to a beach or park on the one hand or to a sewage treatment plant or motorway flyover on the other.
Finally, I do not think that it is a matter for legislation—it would be difficult to legislate for—but it is irresponsible for tour operators and their representatives not to warn the more thoughtless and unsophisticated of their clients against offending the local people by going topless, or wearing provocative T-shirts or brief shorts in Moslem countries—or, for that matter, in many Christian, Hindu or Buddhist countries. Not only is it ill-mannered and insensitive; it can also be dangerous for the person concerned.
As I said at the outset, I do not think that this matter is strictly any business of the EC. But on the evidence provided in the report, I believe that there is a case for some modest unilateral extension of consumer protection in a manner that takes into account British habits, preferences and conditions.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, noble Lords will understand if I do not completely follow all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I should like to congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Broxbourne for his introduction to an extremely important report—important in that it
1082
affects millions of people rather than for its substance. There is particular pleasure in thanking my noble friend who was a distinguished and eloquent chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament where I have followed modestly in his footsteps.
I declare a moral interest in the draft directive. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has referred to a letter I wrote to the Financial Times relating events which happened to me. I realise that noble Lords may not lead the same kind of life. I went with my family on what was our first and, I believe, will be our last package holiday to Greece. The plane was due to leave at 8 a.m. We were not told what time it would leave but eventually it left at 8 p.m. Instead of arriving at 4 p.m., enabling us to stay in a hotel of which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would approve because it was extremely comfortable, we arrived at 5.15 a.m. We had been driven in a taxi by a Cretan for three and a half hours. Almost 24 hours of the holiday had been lost.
I asked not only on my behalf but on behalf of many hundreds of people who were affected, what kind of compensation we would receive. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I was told, "You might get a free meal". Surely that is unacceptable to those who save all year and for whom a holiday is a major part of their annual expenditure.
I should like to pay tribute to the many thousands of people who were sitting at Gatwick Airport for 25, 27 and 29 hours. They were patient, courteous and always good humoured. I hope not to sound too Anglophile but I believe that it showed the British at their best. It was not an agreeable experience for anyone, particularly those with children. That situation continued through August.
I am appalled because I have read in the press that Gatwick Airport is making arrangements with hotels and restaurants to deal with similar problems next August. The tour operators have not taken on board the responsibility they have for their consumers. It is extraordinary that because one buys a package tour one is considered to be second class. One is paying money to travel on a plane which leaves at a certain time in order to arrive at a certain place. That is an ordinary part of the law of contract on which my noble friend Lord Broxbourne is an expert. It is unreasonable that travellers can pay a sum of money and be treated in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, rightly pointed out the fact that 85 per cent. of people who buy package tours are satisfied. I accept that and also the fact we have excellent tour operators. However, 15 per cent. of 12 million people is a large number. I have made the calculation on the back of an envelope: the figure is almost 2 million dissatisfied customers. That is an awful lot of people who are dissatisfied with their package tours.
In the light of the diversity of legislation which exists throughout the Community and the kinds of self-regulation or special contract law in different countries, I believe that there should be ground rules which give people some rights against the person with whom they make the contract. That should apply to people whenever they buy their tickets for a package tour and wherever they are going.

1083
Questions have been asked about how the tour operator protects himself or herself against a hotel which does not come up to scratch. The traveller makes the contract with the tour operator who has the right of breach of contract against the person with whom he has made the contract. I believe that to be the simple answer and the basis of the argument used in the draft directive.
I should like to deal with the legal base. I understand the fact that noble Lords prefer Article 100 because it is unanimous. Although it uses the horrible word "harmonisation" instead of the word "approximation" which appears in Article 100 and which I believe to be more suitable, the Commission has proposed Article 100A. We on the Legal Affairs Committee, and I suspect those in the Parliament, will strongly support that base. As of today it has a strong point in its favour. Under Article 100A there is a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers. And the Council of Ministers must listen and read the amendments of the European Parliament.
There are many issues in the directive which noble Lords do not like. Nor do we, who will be tabling amendments from both the Legal Affairs Committee and the committee which is dealing with the subject. The rapporteur is Dr. Caroline Jackson who is English. No doubt some if not all the amendments will be adopted in plenary. The Council of Ministers must listen to the amendments and give an answer under the co-operation procedure. Thereby we shall have a chance at Second Reading to have jusification of why amendments have not been accepted.
Noble Lords have provided us with a most valuable report, and we are having an equally valuable debate. Everything which is said in this House will be taken into account by the European Parliament. I hope that at the end of the day noble Lords will consider that the argument in favour of Article 100A, and the benefit of their wisdom and advice, will not be wasted.
I should like to spend a few minutes considering some of the details of the draft directive because they are important. I hope that my noble friend Lord Broxbourne will take up this issue. In Article 2 there is a lack of clarity in defining what a package tour consists of and who are the operators. Are they only tour operators and agencies registered in the European Community? That is not made clear; I believe that it should be. Is it clear that package tours cover anywhere in the world? I believe that they should. The person making the contract within the European Community will he responsible for the success or failure of the package to wherever it may be. I believe that those issues should be clearly stated in the draft directive.
Similarly, it should be clearly stated whether the directive covers package holidays or package travel as a whole including business travel. It is no use saying that one will be travelling in a plane with only English people. There may be a single European market by the end of 1992, so whether one likes it or not one will not always find oneself sitting next to Englishmen in the coming years, particularly if one travels on business. For example, I flew to Strasbourg on Monday morning this week, but I had to fly back
1084
from Frankfurt in order to be here tonight. Therefore we do not move in a cocoon around the world; we travel from place to place. I sat next to an American and two seats away from a person who had been to Russia. We must accept the fact that for many people travel is part of daily life. They must be protected just as much as people who buy holidays in Spain.
We on the Legal Affairs Committee are concerned about the way in which contracts have been concluded with tour operators, particularly the small print on the back of the ticket which sets out exclusions whereby the operator claims no liability. We believe that the brochure should include a specimen form of the contract with all the major items to be concluded. In that way people would know what they are buying. I believe that to be a useful proposal. It is a proposal which we have made as our opinion but it has not yet come before the plenary session of the European Parliament. It is merely our proposal.
The other aspect touched upon by most noble Lords concerns surcharges. Almost everyone who bought a package tour this year was charged between £10 and £14 extra for fuel. It is not very difficult reading the press to discover that fuel has gone down in the past two years or so, but one never sees a reduction in the price of the package. That is understandable. One makes a contract at a price, but that should stick. It should not suddenly be added to so that five or six people pay between £10 and £14 extra. I do not wish to use myself as an example but it helps to show how people who are perhaps not in such a fortunate position can suddenly find in the middle of August or just before going on holiday that they have another £50 to pay in surcharge. In our committee there is a division as to whether or not we should support the idea of a surcharge at all.
The Legal Affairs Committee proposed that the price must rise by more than five per cent. before a surcharge could be imposed. That relates to the three conditions of Article 4 of the draft directive which deals with airport charges, currency rates and fuel. We suggested that five per cent. would be a reasonable amount. It is quite clear that there may be circumstances where it would be totally unjust to expect a tour operator to bear the whole cost in the case of a major change.
I should like to mention insurance. I am surprised by the argument that if one is in a plane one might be covered by a different form of insurance to the person sitting in the next seat. I have never sat next to anyone who does not have a different insurance to me. Of course, we are all covered by the Warsaw Convention. However, I hardly need tell your Lordships that if one buys one's ticket through Access there is an automatic £55,000 insurance—which I have not told my husband.
Nevertheless, that is a fact of life. There is no way in which we can all sit in an aeroplane and be covered by exactly the same conditions of insurance. Whether or not the other arguments are valid, that is totally untenable.
As regards cost, France has had strict legislation since 1982 that tour operators or agents de voyages must have insurance. It apparently works out at 22½pence per package per head. I have seen a recent

1085
figure by ABTA. When ABTA was saying how expensive it would be, it had not really inquired. I asked several insurance companies in the City, and at that stage ABTA had not inquired what kind of premiums would he necessary. Further, there is no stipulation as to the liability required—total, strict or limited. Even for limited liability, anyone sitting next to me at Gatwick would have gladly paid £5, £15, or more, to know that they would be compensated for the disadvantages and distress they were suffering. It does not take a great mathematician to realise that if one does not pay £10 in surcharge, one would be quite willing to pay £10 for insurance. I do not believe that such insurance would ruin the pockets of many people.
Above all, it gives a sense of responsibility to tour operators who then know that they are obliged to observe the contract, knowing full well that their clients will be protected by insurance if something goes wrong. That is perfectly right and proper. They can take action against the offending hotel, coach operator or whatever in another member state of the Community, or, indeed, outside the Community.
I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' House with many other important and legal points. The principle is clear; namely, to protect travellers— not only British travellers. Quite a number of foreigners come to Britain. They deserve to be protected against some of the hotels they visit. They will know that they are protected and that they can claim. I was going to use the example of AIDS, but perhaps I should not. They are protected should they receive some kind of treatment, or food, which is not acceptable.
Therefore, for the benefit of consumers as a whole, I warmly welcome the draft directive. I am glad to see that the Office of Fair Trading also considers it necessary. That is a totally independent body without any political overtones. There is no question of it being European or non-European. I read in the report that it recognises and supports the need for this. I believe that we are all agreed that there are certain elements which need to be looked at more closely. Article 100A gives a chance to change the draft directive more radically than if one sticks to Article 100.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she could tell me what the 22½ pence in France covers by comparison to what could be covered by £6, £7 or £10 here. Are we comparing like with like? The report says that it was impossible to ascertain from France precisely what the 22½p. covered?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is correct. Nobody quite knows what the 22½ pence covers. That was the figure given by the French tour operators. Even if that is low and the ABTA figure looks high, I assure your Lordships that the people with whom I travelled at Gatwick would be glad to pay £10, particularly if not paying a surcharge. However, I am afraid that I cannot specifically answer the noble Lord's question.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it is a joy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and I shall be glad to return to some of the points she made later.
First, I should like to say how glad I was that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, was proposing this Motion, not only because of his legal knowledge but from a personal point of view. Some 35 years ago in another place when he was chairman of the 1922 Committee the noble Lord was good enough to help me in sponsoring a Bill for consumers which we eventually managed to carry forward into an Act. We should never have done that without his support. Therefore, I felt that it was right that someone who cared so much for consumers should move the Motion today and I should like to thank him for what he has said.
I should like to thank the Select Committee as a whole for its report. I thought it was very good and most of us have learnt a great deal from it. I certainly did. I do not believe that it is only we in Parliament who will be thankful, but it will be the millions of people who use package holidays and package holiday facilities year in and year out. I think it would be right if I were to express appreciation to the many organisations which put in a lot of work on this subject and which have sent information. I specifically include the National Consumer Council. the Consumers in the European Community Group, the Consumers' Association and the Office of Fair Trading. I hope that each will recognise its contribution and my appreciation.
I believe that we all feel, and most of us have said, that this report could not be more timely following the dreadful summer which we experienced in 1988. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—and we have often said this in this House—that the charter industry serves this country well. However, there is considerable variation across the package holiday market. In a survey carried out in 1987 on a European level—and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned the cheapness of some of our tours—UK operators in Europe had the cheapest in three out of four packages. The differential between the dearest and the cheapest price for the same package was 40 per cent. in two thirds of the sample, while in four cases it exceeded 80 per cent. I believe that we should pay tribute to the charter industry for its achievements.
It seems to me that package travel, package holidays and package tours have brought inestimable value and pleasure to people who never thought in their lifetime that it would be possible to travel so far afield. However, having tasted that pleasure, the traveller is not content to have such happenings as those of last summer ruin something so enjoyable.
Furthermore, I believe that today holiday-makers are not prepared to put up with delays, crowded airports and what seems to them to be inefficient services. They pay hard earned money. It is my firm belief that they are perfectly prepared to pay more of their hard earned money to see matters put right. I hope that that lesson has gone home. Travellers are not willing for those conditions to continue. That is the main reason why I welcome this report from the

1087
Select Committee and the draft directive from the Commission. If we can get over to the powers-that-be in this country and elsewhere that travellers are determined to have this put right we shall have achieved something.
I was greatly cheered by the strong support from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who has had such vast experience in the European Market. I for one am glad that she is there and the Legal Committee is lucky to have her. We shall look to good results from that.
Let us assume that everyone—and I am sure it is true—wants to put this matter right. Where do we start? I start simply with the consumers, the travellers. What do they want? What do we all want when we go on holiday? I have listed three points: first, no change of holiday after booking and no change in arrangements entered into; secondly, no unforeseen extra charges, and I emphasise the word "unforeseen"; thirdly, brochures should come up to expectations. As Article 3 stipulates,
"descriptive matter must be legible, understandable and accurate".
Each of us will have our own list but taking the three I have chosen, what of the first concerning no change of holiday after booking and no change of arrangements entered into? I start with a statistic: 22 per cent. of people had their holiday changed after it was booked and one half of those changes were made after the final payment or during the holiday. That was in 1986. In paragraph 51 the Select Committee states:
"There is also a strong public policy argument that the package traveller needs special protection because among consumers he is unusually vulnerable. He has paid all his money in advance, he cannot easily take his custom elsewhere or replace a spoilt holiday and he has in practice no realistic remedy against airline delays or foreign hotel owners".
Furthermore, the Select Committee goes on to state its agreement with the Commission that there are good consumer reasons for Community legislation to establish common rules which in some states would lead to greater protection of package travellers. I shall come back to that at the end of my remarks, but I am cheered that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, seem to think that that is the case.
Unfortunately, the draft directive allows the organiser to cancel the package for whatever cause. In addition, the organiser may cancel the travel in two cases without compensation to the consumer for non-fulfilment of the contract. The first case is the cancellation on the ground that the number of persons is less than the minimum number specified. The second case is cancellation for reasons of force majeure, excluding however overbooking. The House knows my views on overbooking and I am glad that the Select Committee recognises this as an increasing phenomenon.
Force majeure needs a better legal brain than mine to interpret, but even I know that its interpretation is not the same throughout the Community. I leave that problem to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the Legal Committee with the suggestion that we laymen in the legal world study carefully page 119 in the Select Committee report.
1088
I now come to my second point concerning no unforeseen extra charges. I believe that the present practice of surcharges is unacceptable. Surely the simplest and fairest solution is to lay down that the price cannot be changed once the full price has been paid by the consumer; in other words, the price at the time of booking should be the final price. On 23rd May 1988 the Minister for Consumer Affairs stated that ABTA had proposed a solution which would have the effect of removing the need for up to 90 per cent. of surcharges. In common with the rest of your Lordships I have tried to find out what people who really know the subject think of this. I suggest that it is the considered opinion of researchers on this subject that surcharges are out of proportion to the actual increase in costs, that they are costly to collect, that they are not properly explained and that the calculation of surcharges is a matter of concern. I am very glad—and 1 keep coming back to the Select Committee because we have a friend there—that this matter is to be looked into.
That is a strong indictment made by the researchers. I accept it. I welcome the proposal that the Office of Fair Trading should monitor 20 major tour operators to ensure that surcharges are not abused. The efforts of the Commission on this practice are welcomed but they are considered to be insufficient. However, I know that the Select Committee accepts that surcharging to reflect fuel cost increases and currency fluctuations is inescapable. I assume from that—and I look at the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—that when any currency fluctuation favours the cost to the traveller the charges would then be reduced, meaning that travellers would get a refund rather than a surcharge.
I come now to the last of my three points—brochures. The Office of Fair Trading, in its publication of July 1988, said that,
"Probably the most important face presented by the industry is brochures. The tour operators' code requires them to be clear, accurate and comprehensive".
Additionally, it said that holiday brochures, on balance, tended to receive good ratings.
Holiday brochures cost a lot of money to prepare. It seems a pity to spoil them by not getting all the facts right. Evidence to the Select Committee said that consumers complained, for example, that on occasion the illustrations of the resort or of the hotels led them to be misled about what would be provided—perhaps a statement that a hotel was near a beach when, although it was, there was a major roadway between the hotel and the beach so that it was not suitable for children—or perhaps that the picture of the building described in the brochure was only one of the buildings under construction when the brochure was put together.
With others I welcome the obligation on member states to ensure that information in brochures and contracts is legible, accurate and understandable; but I would support also a suggestion that there should be a requirement that the information in the brochure is consistent with that in the contract. I hope that the Select Committee, perhaps prodded by the Legal Committee, will include that point in its recommendations.

1089
I should like to take up one further detail. In paragraph 59 the Select Committee states,
"that it seems to be unnecessary to require the full address of a hotel or other accommodation to be inserted in a brochure, so long as particulars adequate for identification are included".
I do not agree. I believe that it would be of great value to consumers to have this information. I am convinced that it would build up confidence. Perhaps the Select Committee will feel able to consider that point again.
That concludes my three points and I now come to my conclusion. This can be summed up by the first conclusion reached by the Select Committee on page 24:
"Although the package travel industry has been very successful, consumers now want and are ready to pay for a better service. The package traveller is economically vulnerable and needs greater legal protection. There is a good case for Community legislation".
Consumers in the European Community Group (CECG) does not believe that making travel companies responsible for essential measures to protect their clients will automatically lead to substantial price increases. It seems to me very difficult to get any accurate figures on this, and that has already been referred to. The group understands that the Commission's discussions with European insurers suggests that the cost of insuring for liability under the directive would be minimal. In France, where there is already strict liability for package tours, as your Lordships probably know, a 1985 estimate suggested that this added an extra 2.32 French francs or 22 pence to the cost per person.
The National Consumer Council states that the directive envisages a European-wide travel holiday market. If UK consumers are to purchase holidays from French, German or Spanish tour companies, the National Consumer Council does not think it is desirable or realistic to expect them to pursue their grievances with a tour operator in another country. As your Lordships will know, most UK consumers believe that the travel company is responsible when things go wrong, but a tour operator may disclaim strict liability in many instances. Yet tour operators are in a far stronger position than the individual holiday-maker to recover damages from foreign hotels or transport carriers since they can withdraw from future bookings.
If out of this draft directive, the efforts of our Select Committee and the detailed work done by many organisations we succeed in developing policies to promote tourism within the Community, and if we do that by 1992, I for one shall be more than satisfied.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is to wind up for that side of the House, and my noble friend the Minister; and excepting my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, who has introduced this debate in such a gentle way, at the end of the general list of speakers it is difficult to find some new aspect. I do not have a new aspect. I wish to underline one or two matters.
I am sure that we are all particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Elles for her explanation why the Community directive is as it is; namely, the differences between Article 100 and 100A. I believe
1090
that is helpful. It is a little contrary to what the Select Committee suggest in their report. I believe this to be a very valuable point that we need to keep in the forefront of our minds.
My younger son wrote a thesis at university some years ago on the package holiday industry. I recall him saying that it will bring a dramatic change to the way of life of millions of people. It is not that the package holiday is cheap. I hope that the noble Lord Graham will forgive me because he, among others, spoke about the cheapness. It is perhaps less expensive than other ways of travelling about. I would not use the term package tour but call it an all-in-tour where travel, accommodation and food and some element of entertainment is included. Sadly, nothing in this world is cheap.
The package holiday business has raised the expectations of people—to a degree that the tour operators find difficult to meet. I believe that is where many people go wrong. It is contained in the evidence. I believe it was Miss Cassin who spoke about dreams and nightmares. In December, as the new glossy brochures drop through the letterbox inviting one to go here and there, dreams are created. Most of them are fulfilled. There are some nightmares; and various statistics have been put about. Out of some 20 million users of the service, some 11 per cent. give rise to complaint which means conversely that some 89 per cent. do not complain. The fact that there are no grounds for complaint for the 89 per cent. is immaterial since the numbers continue to go up. That is not a bad record for the industry.
Where and how are the complaints registered and against whom? There are difficulties in this regard to which the report draws attention. I believe that most complaints are against the tour operator. But at the same time I believe that it is the retailer who has a duty and not just to sell a ticket out of a catalogue. A retailer has a duty to make his best endeavours in order to determine what it is that the client is trying to buy. He should give advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to the hotel near the sea. That is fine for an adult; but is not so good for a family with three small children, a perambulator and two big baskets. What is it that the client is expecting to buy, and what advice should be given? What should the expectation be? If that can be better satisfied, then I believe that the number of complaints may well decrease.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the brochure. I believe that most are written in an enthusiastic, glossy style with an element of poetic licence. However, if one is looking for an adventure holiday in some far-flung corner of what used to be called the Empire, it may say that travellers should expect that standards of hygiene are not those normally associated with a European resort. That is perfectly fair and reasonable. The brochure should put quite clearly the down side of the picture. I believe that there is a greater responsibiility on the tour operator in the description of the product than we have seen in recent years. I believe that would remove a number of areas of complaint.
I believe that tour operators, particularly in the more popular areas where there are vast numbers of

1091
people moving about, should have a greater and more responsible representation in the field so that a number of difficulties and problems that give rise to complaint when the traveller returns home can be dealt with on the spot. I believe they are called couriers, but I call them representatives in the field. They should have a discretion to settle on the spot the less important complaints. In my view there is a retailer responsibility.
I am broadly in favour of the directive. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that this is an incursion into our sovereignty. The holiday travel business is worldwide and we are all part of it. As responsible members of the Community, it is reasonable that we should have a common purpose in this lucrative and important business. Perhaps I may return to a point raised by my noble friend Lady Elles; namely, compensation for delay. I do not wish to go into the matter in great detail, but I suggest that the tour operator should have strict and unlimited liability in terms of the hotel, accommodation and associated services. Whether they should have some liability as regards travel, I slightly dispute. I do not believe that it is entirely necessary. I believe that it is for other companies and institutions to provide compensation. The vagaries of air travel, whether they are due to weather, mechanical or even political reasons, should not necessarily give rise to compensation.
I am always a little worried that people turn to the compensation clause in the contract as the first means of getting rid of their chagrin, disappointment and dismay. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to changes made by the operator giving rise to compensation. The quid pro quo must apply that, on wise reflection or because of unscheduled expense arising in a household, the consumer decides to make the change. Compensation to the seller of the product should follow. So the changes are not entirely one sided. The noble Baroness would probably agree that there is a responsibility.
As I listened to the debate I wondered whether I might quote the words—and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne will in the kindest way correct me if indeed correction I need—
"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive".
I wonder whether those might not be watchwords for some of those who look through the catalogues and become frightfully excited during the winter months at the thought of these golden beaches in some foreign field seven or eight months hence, or glance at the catalogues during the summer and look for the snow some five months hence.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that liability for delay can depend on the cause of the delay. Delay could be caused by a strike of traffic controllers in one country or another so that it would be impossible for a flight to take off. But where delay is due to the inefficiency of the carrier, that is another matter. It is not strictly correct to say that there should be no compensation for delay if there is a good reason for the failure of the operator to fulfil his contract. Does my noble friend agree that we should leave this matter open for discussion?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I concur with what my noble friend says. I hope I did not give the impression that there should be no compensation. I was suggesting that the compensation might come from a different area. No one can guarantee at all times that X or Y will happen. Certain failures may be compensatable; others most certainly would not be.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for introducing the Select Committee's report. We on these Benches are grateful to him for his reference to Lord Silkin of Dulwich who died recently. He is missed both on these Benches and generally in your Lordships' House.
We have a number of comments on the Select Committee's conclusions, some of which the committee may not find wholly palatable. Our first is that this is not a consumer protection directive. It is a directive designed to implement in part the internal market of 1992. There are two parts to the directive, as the preamble quite clearly states in the draft. The first requires that consumers should be protected. The other requires that tour operators should have what is known as a level playing field in which to compete throughout the Community when the internal market comes about. That is an important point. It would be quite absurd if we argued for a level playing field on the sale of insurance services throughout the Community and did not also argue for a level playing field in the sale of tourist services throughout the same Community. There is no distinction between a life assurance salesman who may go to Stuttgart or to Glasgow after 1992 when the appropriate directive has been implemented and the tour operator who will be entitled to sell tours right across the same jurisdiction.
It astonishes me that ABTA is so much on the defensive. I should have thought that this is a great opportunity for the tour operators of the United Kingdom, which we all admit are the most efficient, the most clever and the most inventive in Europe. It astonishes me that they do not regard this directive, which establishes the level playing field, as being an enormous opportunity for them to go out and get the market.
I note that the Government have taken a view on strict liability even before the Minister has risen to speak. Mr. John Lee, an Under-Secretary at the Department of Employment, told the meeting of tourism ministers in Brussels yesterday that:
"It would be unfair to place the burden of responsibility for every holiday hiccough on companies organising millions of package trips each year".
It looks as though the Government have taken a view on strict liability even before your Lordships' debate. I find that rather regrettable.
I should like to deal with the status of the directive. Does it come under Article 100 or Article 100A? I regard this not as a consumer protection measure—if it is a consumer protection measure the Government should have introduced it years ago—but as a measure to establish a level playing field across

1093
Europe in the Internal market. It therefore comes under Article 100A. I disagree with the conclusions of the Select Commmittee on that point. I was impressed by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that, from our point of view, Article 100A is better than Article 100. The European Parliament's legal committee will have the right to make amendments and to hear why the Commission and the Council of Ministers disapprove of amendments. And so there will be an interchange of views which will probably be to our advantage. Not only is the Select Committee wrong in its conclusion that this draft directive should come under Article 100, but it is to our advantage that it comes under where I think it should come under, Article 100A.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his characteristic courtesy. Does he recall that in my opening remarks I said that the principle has to be applied only to use the correct article as the legal base. But I also said that although the principle is there, in practice we would not be disadvantaged.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I recognise that that is what he said. Nevertheless the report came down fairly firmly on one side rather than the other. From this Dispatch Box I wish to make the point that we disagree with the conclusion of the Select Committee.
Assuming that the directive is in the end approved by the Council of Ministers, how do we translate it into United Kingdom law? Noble Lords have not touched on this point directly although the report alluded to it. There are three essential ways of doing this. The first is to deal with it in specific terms of contract giving rise to civil actions by aggrieved persons. This is broadly the system we have at the moment. The second is by making it a criminal offence to violate certain specific provisions of the directive. The third is a licensing system, which the committee specifically rejected, similar to the CAA licensing system which more or less duplicates, but on a statutory basis, the present ABTA code of practice and licensing system.
I do not believe that the specific terms of contract arrangement would work. The directive could not properly be implemented simply by making certain grounds for contractual complaint in the civil courts. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I had long discussions during the passage of the Consumer Protection Bill through your Lordships' House and I think that the problems involved in relying upon civic procedure for some of the remedies became apparent to both of us, even though we approached the matter from slightly different angles.
So we would favour some sort of extension of the CAA licensing system—the type which the committee specifically rejected. The Financial Services Act has a licensing arrangement. I use the world "licensing" in the broadest sense of the word. But there is a body, or bodies, which authorise people to do certain things and if they do not do those things then they are in a lot of trouble and can be not only as in the ABTA case thrown out of the association but in many cases they can be taken to court. I think
1094
that something along those lines would be the kind of arrangement which we would favour.
I come now to the scope of the directive. There is the problem of whether the directive should only comprise packages where there is an element of travel. The committee focused on that point and said that there should be such an element of travel involved. I think that that is probably true if we are talking in a purely UK context. But if you go and live, as I have done, in Europe—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, knows this much better than I do—you can go on a skiing weekend from Stuttgart to Davos; your club will hire the bus in which you go but you will have the package in the hotels. Whereas for us, we have to travel outside to go, as it were, anywhere other than to Whipsnade Zoo, or wherever; but when we come to Europe and we must consider this as a European directive, because that is what we are talking about—there are many occasions on which Germans, French and Italians do not regard it as psychologically essential to have both travel and hotels in the same package. You can have one or the other or the other and one. So I think that we are looking at it from the point of view of the United Kingdom context a bit too much. I hope that we would not argue that point wholly from the British point of view but would understand that our Continental friends have slightly different arrangements.
On the specific points in the draft directive, I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have said about travel brochures. On the whole I agree with what they say. There is of course the problem of the misleading price indication—Part 111 of the Consumer Protection Act—which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord athclyde, will wish to deal with when he comes to talk about the prices quoted in brochures. Although that part of the Act has not yet been implemented because the commencement order has not yet been produced, nevertheless it will when it comes, which I understand will be fairly soon, affect what price is quoted, and on what basis, on the brochure of a package travel. Unless it is quoted as an estimate, which is specifically excluded on the Consumer Protection Act, it will have the characteristic of being a price indication. If it is misleading in any way, I am afraid that it will be a criminal offence to the retailer or organiser who produces the brochure. If the price changes for unaccountable reasons, when the brochure is in front of the person who is buying the tour on that basis, there may be a problem. It may be possible to overcome that problem, and I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord will comment upon that when he comes to wind up.
On travel contracts, I generally agree again with what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said about cancellation. On the other hand, however, I agree with the committee that the problems of ensuring in a directive—which must be translated into law—a right to an alternative (which is Article 4(6)(a)) would run into some very serious problems. I find it in practice very difficult to see how tour operators could, at short notice, be obliged by law in some manner to provide an alternative.

1095
As regards surcharges, I wholly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said. In fact I would go further than what she said. I see no reason at all for surcharges based on currency fluctuations or the cost of fuel. Day after day Ministers speak from the Government Front Bench and say that there is no reason to go into the EMS as a full member because everyone can hedge currency risks. We hear that day after day. Presumably tour operators are reasonably financially competent individuals and they can hedge currency risks, particularly short-term currency risks, just as well as anyone else.
So just because the value between sterling and the deutschemark, or sterling and the peseta changes, it does not seem to me to be at all justifiable to say that a surcharge should be in some way condoned. I would say that the financial director of the tour operator ought to be sacked before that happens. Equally, it is perfectly possible to hedge against the cost of fuel. There is a Rotterdam market in aviation gasolene oil and JP4. Any tour operator if he wants to set about it can hedge against these various commercial risks.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I understand that there is not a long-term futures market for oil, but I may be wrong.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, no; there is no long-term futures market. But we are not talking about long-term futures; we are talking about holidays which are bought in January and which are taken up in July and August. We are talking about a six-month market. If the noble Lord would like to come along with me I will show him the market in six-nine month futures in these products. Therefore I do not believe that surcharges are on the agenda at all. I think that we ought to be absolutely clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is right and we ought just to bury that aspect.
The last point that I have on specifics is the question of strict liability. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a very good point that retailers (that is, travel agents) ought at least to be included in some form—I am not quite sure how it could be done, but, assuming the directive comes under Article 100(A), then I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will find some suitable formula. But I think that it is quite wrong that the agent should be free of liability, while the tour operator bears the whole liability.
The point about strict liability has been made by one or two noble Lords. It is not that the tour operator admits guilt in some way if something goes wrong. The argument that he has got something wrong is not the point. The question is, who is best able to fight the case in a foreign jurisdiction. The answer is, the tour operator. That is much better than the individual person who has bought the package. That is why we would support the idea of strict liability as spelt out in the draft directive.
As for insurance, figures have been bandied around this evening about whether the figure is 22p, 2½ francs or £5 or £10, or whatever; I know not. I
1096
daresay that nobody else in the world at the moment knows what the figure would be if there were an instruction legally binding that there should be strict liability. What I do know is that there will be a market, because at a price there will be a market. It may be a price that the purchaser of the tour may not be prepared to pay; that is his problem. There may be a different price. There may be one price for an uninsured holiday; there may be a price for an insured holiday. All kinds of things are perhaps possible. But, anybody who argues that there is no market for insurance is arguing falsely. We would make that point as strongly as we possibly could. If insurance works, then guarantee funds and the other arrangements that were mentioned in the committee's report do not seem to matter too much. If the insurance market is worth anything, it is worth its liabilities. We do not have any strong feelings about whether there should or should not be guarantee funds or funds held in trust.
I want to return to the point that the draft directive is not merely a consumer protection measure. It is designed—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, agrees with me, I think—to create after 1992 a level playing field for everyone. It will be part of the internal market and will be selling services. Those services happen to be services to consumers wanting to buy a tourist package. It could equally be, as I said, services providing life insurance or anything else. That is why I believe that this is an amazing opportunity for United Kingdom tour operators. I regret that they seem to be defensive about it.
As the noble Baroness said, we saw on our television screens this summer some appalling scenes of holiday-makers stuck for hours, and sometimes days, in airport lounges. I read on the tape that Christmas holiday-makers are about to risk the same fate. Something must be done. Since the Government are obviously not prepared to do anything by themselves, we have to look to the European Community to force us to do something.
Tour operators must accept their responsibilities: strict liability to deliver the package they offer, at the price they offer and on the conditions that they offer. Nothing else is acceptable. If they fail, proper compensation should be provided immediately and without complaint to those whose holidays have been spoilt.
Tour operators and travel agencies will, I have no doubt, be able to insure themselves against their liabilities if—nowadays perhaps it is when— things go wrong. If they do that, as Europe wishes, they will be in a marvellous position to capture the European markets after 1992. A fair deal for the holiday-maker means prosperity for our efficient package travel industry. The chance should not be lost.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that there is only so much air space available in Europe? That is a fact of nature. There is nothing that the European Community or anyone else can do about it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I especially enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. In his remarks he spoke of fresh minds. I started to tackle the subject with a fresh mind, but as I learnt more and more about it my mind became slightly clouded. However, the report helped to clear it. I joined other noble Lords in regretting the death of Lord Silkin of Dulwich, who will be much missed in the House.
As for the report itself, I should like to begin by congratulating noble Lords who sat on the subcommittee on producing a very well researched, well balanced and well argued report. The Government have followed the proceedings of the sub-committee closely. The evidence presented to the sub-committee and your Lordships' report were of enormous help to the Government in drawing up a detailed negotiating line on the directive.
Like the sub-committee, the Government have found that they have had to consider carefully the respective interests of the two parties concerned: the consumer and the tour operator. To take the interest of the consumer first—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will agree—the Government believe he is entitled to expect that the tour operator will provide him with precisely the holiday he booked, not an approximation of it. He is entitled to expect that he will go to the hotel he chose from the brochure, not one up the road. He is entitled to expect that he will pay the holiday price quoted in the brochure, and not be surcharged, unless it is made crystal clear to him in the brochure that surcharges may he made and in what circumstances. He is also entitled to expect that the hotel and other services forming the package are of a reasonable standard.
Noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lady Elles, have recounted examples of cases where those reasonable expectations may not have been met. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will find the comments reassuring even though she and the Government do not see entirely eye to eye on surcharges, subject to which I shall return later.
The consumer's interest does not, however, lie solely in getting the holiday he booked. It lies in getting the holiday he booked at a price he can afford. Here I must join in the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Baroness Lady Burton of Coventry, to the success of the package travel industry in bringing foreign holidays within the reach of ordinary people. About 4 million packages per annum were sold 10 years ago. Today the figure is about 13 million. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne mentioned that people travel to get away from the English. With figures like 13 million, people would find that difficult today.
It is a tremendous achievement and it may not be realised just how cheaply British tour operators sell their product. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that the European consumer body (BEUC) has undertaken surveys which show that holidays provided by UK tour operators are often 30 per cent. or more cheaper than identical holidays provided by Continental operators. In a
1098
typical example (two weeks in Benidorm in July 1988 at the hotel Las Ocas) four UK operators charged between £365 and £392; a Belgian operator £401; two Dutch operators £426 and £471; and three French operators between £470 and £580. In another example, and I shall not give too many., but they show the difference (two weeks in Tunisia in July 1988 at the hotel Les Orangers)—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been there.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I had a date in Tunisia!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the one UK operator offering the hotel charged £414; eight German operators charged between £472 and £585. I seriously doubt whether those higher prices represent 30 per cent. better quality of service, or 30 per cent. better protection for Continental consumers.
The other interest which must be taken into account is, as I have said, the tour operator's. The tour operator wants to limit or avoid liability for circumstancs outside his control. He is anxious to limit his liability when circumstances such as an air traffic controllers' strike in Greece or Spain, or deliberate overbooking by a Greek of Spanish hotelier, prevent him from fulfilling his contractual obligations to his customers. He will regard it as extremely inequitable if he is held liable for substantial damages for death, personal injury or other loss or damage suffered by his customers as a result of deficiencies in hotel or transport services forming part of the package if he himself exercised all due skill and care in selecting the suppliers concerned. In short, the tour operator does not want to see any provisions from Brussels which will cause him to increase his holiday prices, or to restrict the range of holidays which he offers, if as a result he will sell fewer holidays.
That brings me to what I and other noble Lords believe is the most significant article in the proposed directive, and the most significant of the Select Committee's conclusions. I refer to Article 5, which places strict and unlimited liability on tour operators for any deficiency in the provision of the various elements of the holiday. It not only holds tour operators liable to provide holiday-makers with all the promised elements of the package; it goes much further by imposing liability for death, personal injury, and other loss or damage arising from defects in hotel, transport, or other services forming part of the package, regardless of whether the tour operator was negligent.
The Government agree with the Select Committee that strict liability on the tour operator for performance of all services in the package is neither economically insurable nor right in principle. It is inevitable that the article as drafted would have an adverse effect on the price and range of holidays available. The Government's objective is to ensure that UK holiday-makers continue to enjoy the benefits of cheap package travel to a wide variety of holiday destinations.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Lee, having said today that the Government do not accept that the directive

1099
should place strict and unlimited liability on tour operators. He was not of course at that time contradicting the Select Committee's conclusion, to which I have just referred.
The committee's report goes on to recommend that liability for each element of the package should be separately examined, but that there should be strict liability for defects in hotel premises or services. I have to disappoint some noble Lords by saying that I do not want to comment definitively on this recommendation tonight nor on the more detailed suggestions in the body of the Select Committee's report. It is too early to predict exactly how negotiations will develop, although I shall have something to say on that matter in a moment. The Government's starting point is that tour operators should be contractually liable to provide their customers with precisely the holiday which they book, but that beyond this some formula must be found for defining or limiting liability in a sensible way. Many of our Community partners appear to share our general concern but would like to tackle the offending article in different ways. It remains to be seen what sort of formula might be mutually acceptable, but I am extremely grateful to the Select Committee for their detailed suggestions which remain on the table to inform and assist UK negotiators.
At this stage the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, talked about the insurance industry. I cannot see any reason why insurance cannot be obtained against the possibility of a customer's holiday being spoilt by excessive noise, as he showed by example, or of his suffering an accident in the hotel. This would need to be explored with the insurance industry itself, and I believe that many other noble Lords made a similar point.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also went on to ask, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, whether it is sometimes the position that some travellers on a plane will be covered by the directive and others not. The answer is essentially yes, some passengers will have contracts with the tour operators while others will not. One point which will need to be considered carefully in negotiations is whether it is right that the directive should impose different levels of liabilty in respect of the two classes of passengers. I think that there is a good case for ensuring that these kinds of anomalies are avoided.
I feel that it is appropriate at this point to inform the House about the state of current negotiations although I have been slightly pre-empted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Following an initial reading of the directive at working level, a progress report was made yesterday to the tourism council. The council agreed that in its present form the directive was not acceptable, particularly with regard to the strict and unlimited liability provisions in Article 5. The Commission was asked to look at the present text again and to produce a more acceptable proposal, following consultations with experts and tour operators. Furthermore, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, thinks, the Government
1100
are not against consumer protection for holidaymakers. Far from it.
Perhaps I may go on now to say a word about the proposed treaty base for the directive, Article 100A, which again very many noble Lords mentioned during the course of the evening. The Government agree with the ommittee—but I am afraid not with the noble Lord, Lord Williams—that the main object of the directive is consumer protection, and that any purpose or effect of increasing free movement of services is peripheral and subordinate. We have noted the points which the Committee have made about Article 100A being an inappropriate basis for the directive. We shall pursue these with the Commission and other member states during negotiations in Brussels.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Will the Government pursue it to the High Court? I think that is the ultimate arbiter for the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course at the moment we are only discussing it in negotiations. We shall have to see what comes out of the negotiations in the near future. The Government accept the general tenor of the Committee's recommendations covering Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the directive. It is only on relatively minor points of detail that we disagree. I do not think too much should be made of these as the final text will be subject to much negotiation. Compromises will no doubt have to be made along the way. Nevetheless, it may be of interest if I briefly run through the Government's views on these matters.
On the scope of the directive, the Government agree with the committee that the directive should be limited to packages arranged in the course of the organiser's business and which include an element of travel. We should ideally like to go a little further and limit the directive to packages which comprise travel and accommodation, and in which both services are a significant part of the total. A definition on these lines would embrace all package tour operators in the conventional sense but exclude such domestic package arrangements as coach trips to the zoo which would be caught by the present draft. As the Committee notes in its report, it seems excessive to subject such arrangements to the stringent requirements of the directive itself.
Turning to the proposals on travel brochures and travel contracts, specifically mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Broxbourne and Lord Monson, and the noble Baroness Lady Burton of Coventry, the Government agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the committee that the proposals on brochures and advertising are, broadly speaking, reasonable. We also agree that tour operators should not be required to do more than use their best efforts to transfer bookings where the consumer is unable to travel. We are unconvinced, however, that the proposal for compulsory written contracts is necessary, and we are also unconvinced that the existing wording of the directive is sufficiently flexible to cater for particular trade practices such as "square deal" holidays. We have no criticism of standard contract forms, as the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne,

1101
has advocated; but we question whether it is desirable to make them compulsory in every circumstance, particularly given that the scope of the directive remains unclear at present.
My noble friend Lord Lucas wanted to know about the duty to inform and give advice to customers about a proposed holiday, and that these should be imposed on the travel agent. We do not think it would be reasonable to impose such a duty on the travel agent. He is very often not in a position ',sometimes running an extremely small business) to verify all the facts about the holiday advertised.
On surcharges which I think gave many noble Lords some concern, the Government welcome the committee's conclusion that the proposals in the directive are realistic. On a point of detail, however, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. We see no unfairness about including in the list of surchargeable cost items dues, taxes or fees such as airport taxes and landing fees. We therefore remain unpersuaded by the Committee's proposal that this line should be excluded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that this subject is a matter of some debate within the committees of the European Parliament. It may be helpful if I outline the Government's position in a little detail. The Government recognise that surcharges are highly unpopular and very much welcome the action taken by many British tour operators in announcing no surcharge guarantees for 1989.
We would not, however, go so far as to outlaw surcharges altogether. The fact is that the mass package travel market in Britain is fiercely price competitive, and profit margins are extremely low. Consumers of course benefit greatly from that situation. Tour operators may simply not have the margins to absorb unbudgeted cost increases and any guarantee may necessitate a substantial increase in holiday prices.
The Government believe decisions such as this should be left to tour operators' commercial judgment. We do however regard it as important that tour operators should make it crystal clear in their brochures whether they reserve the right to levy surcharges, and in what circumstances that would be done. We would be happy to see the directive amended to that effect, but otherwise we regard the provisions in the draft directive as a reasonable compromise, and we are pleased to see that the Select Committee regards them as realistic. I am not sure that that will entirely appease the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, but I shall read her speech in detail in Hansard tomorrow.
On complaints, the Government agree that the provision requiring local tourist authorities so far as possible to investigate complaints is cast in far too rigid terms. We are worried about the burden that would place on tourist authorities in the United Kingdom. We also believe that it would be dangerous to encourage tourist authorities, which will have no knowledge of the holiday-maker's contract with the tour operator, to become involved in contractual disputes between those two parties. We should be happy to see that provision dropped from the
1102
directive altogether. As for complaints in general, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the problem of strict liability is that the tour operator has no choice but to be liable for some situations that sometimes seem faintly ridiculous. I have spoken on this question already.
As regards compulsory insurance and a guarantee fund, the Government take note of the committee's comments. We agree that the ultimate scope of the directive and the extent of potential liabilities need to be clear before the practical repercussions of the provisions of the directive in this area can be properly assessed. We shall be concerned to ensure in negotiation that the directive does not impose uneconomic insurance requirements on tour operators and does not require any unnecessary extension of the UK's present Air Travel Trust guarantee fund, which works efficiently and well.
I shall now deal briefly with other questions that were raised by many noble Lords. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has just fled the Chamber. Perhaps he realised I was about to answer his questions. He discussed—to be fair, many other noble Lords also mentioned this—the cost of complying with the directive. Any estimate that is brought up is fraught with difficulty and subject to an extremely large margin of error. But our best assessment is that the directive would increase holiday prices by not less than £5 per head on average, and possibly by as much as £15 per head.
That compares with an average holiday price of £270. The Commission's claim to the Select Committee that the directive would increase prices by only 2.3 French francs, or 22p per customer is, we believe, grossly misleading. So too is the Commission's recently amended claim that the cost would be .23 of a per cent., or 23p per £100. So far as we can ascertain, the figure that the Commission uses may relate solely to the cost of financial guarantees against insolvency. It thus equates to the cost in the UK of bonds against insolvency. They usually cost a matter of pence per customer.
At this point I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that all risks are insurable. That is not so. It is very probable that insurers would say that some risks must be covered by the tour operators themselves. Other risks they may cover only up to certain financial limits.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked whether persons whose names are on a booking form had the protection of the directive. In Article 8, the benefit of the directive is given to persons on behalf of whom the booking is made, as well as the person who makes the booking. It does not do so in very clear terms however, and we shall seek to ensure that this result is achieved more clearly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked whether tour operators had responsibility in the case of airport delays. The directive contains several provisions relevant to tour operators' liability in the case of airport delays. It states that the holidaymaker is allowed to withdraw from the holiday with full refund if there is an unreasonable delay in departure. The Government support that provision. The directive also provides that services forming part of the package must be provided punctually.

1103
The effect of this is probably to make the tour operator liable to compensate the customer for any proportion of the holiday not provided because of a significant delay, for any additional expenses which the customer incurs as a result of such delay and also for the inconvenience he suffers. The Government take the view in principle that tour operators should not escape their contractual obligations to their clients. But in the case of delays beyond their control, it is reasonable that they should be able to limit their liability to such scales of compensation as they may publish. We shall be advancing this view in Brussels.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the directive covered package tours throughout the world. The answer is yes. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked how the directive would be implemented in UK law. The Government will need to consider carefully how the directive should be implemented in United Kingdom law, but it would be premature to say at the moment exactly what method will be used until the directive has been adopted. However, it is likely that it will be implemented by imposing criminal sanctions for breach of some provisions and civil sanctions for breach of others. It is unlikely that a licensing system will be introduced, but I am glad the noble Lord has drawn attention to the extra protection provided to consumers by the misleading prices indication of the Consumer Protection Act.
I now conclude by thanking again the Select Committee, and the noble Lords who have spoken tonight, for their constructive contributions. This is by no means an insignificant directive. Annual sales of package holidays are running, as I have said, at about 13 million and the directive, when it comes back in a new form, will therefore affect a sizeable proportion of this country's population. It is important that the directive comes out in a shape that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom. Your Lordships' report will greatly inform and assist our negotiators. For that we are grateful.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in case I notice a flicker of apprehension upon the brows of noble Lords, I shall instantly make it clear that I have no intention of making another speech. It would be an imposition upon noble Lords, as I have already spoken in a little detail in introducing the report. Equally however I think it would be inappropriate and ungrateful if I did not, just in a sentence or two, record my appreciation of the debate and of the speeches of the noble Lords who have contributed so persuasively and eloquently to it.
The debate has covered the main points in the report. These are the legal base, liability, brochures and advertising, surcharges and the scope of the directive. All these things are dealt with in detail in the report. Therefore, I need not say more in regard to them, except perhaps to identify where the matters are dealt with. The matter of liability is covered in paragraphs 64 to 67. Brochures and advertising come in paragraph 59. Surcharges are in paragraph 63, and the scope of the directive is covered in paragraphs 56 to 58.
1104
I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to my noble friend the Minister for giving us an indication of the Government's present thinking in regard to the report. I am glad to know that the Commission has been told, at any rate provisionally, that in its present form the directive is unacceptable. It should be improved. I think that there is a general opinion that legislation by a directive is desirable, but not in that form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, suggested that improvements could be made both by the European Parliament and by the Select Committee. 1 do not think that it can be done by the Select Committee because I think that we are now fiinctus officio having given our report and enabled this debate to take place. There is also the Legal Affairs Committee—the Commission Juridique, to give it its formal title—of which my noble friend Lady Elles is currently the distinguished chairman. She brings great experience to that office.
Perhaps I may thank the Minister and others who have taken part in the debate. I must correct one point attributing to me the statement that in the present generation Englishmen do not travel to see other Englishmen. I should like to think that anything that Sterne wrote could be written by me, but I made a direct quotation from him and referred to what I call the age of privilege—200 years ago—and not to what I call the democratisation of travel, which I warmly welcome.
Finally, on the subject of citations, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was good enough to ask me to confirm the accuracy of his citation:
"To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive".
I think that that is correct, and if my recollection serves it was said by Oliver Goldsmith. If it was not, someone will inform the noble Viscount from their greater knowledge.
Baroness Birk: Robert Louis Stevenson.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaza and the West Bank
8.52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Gaza and the West Bank.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question asks the Government to do their utmost to prevent breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in occupied Palestine. It will be agreed on all sides that the best way of achieving that would be by a settlement to end the occupation altogether.
We are now faced with a more promising prospect in that regard than ever before. We have had the decisions of the Algiers Conference of the PLO; we have had the surge of world support for the Palestine cause; and yesterday the United States took a historic step in declaring the opening of a dialogue with the PLO. I think that we shall all agree that that could be a great turning point. We should agree that the

1105
Foreign Secretary was right today to say that it is now Israel's turn to make a positive response in the new circumstances.
However, there is no sign as yet of a change of attitude on the Israeli side. It may well be that that is partly due to a religious or ideological desire to maintain and colonise the occupied territories. It is more likely that it is a reflection of a genuine if, I think, illusory fear that Palestinian self-determination in the occupied territories will be a threat to the survival of the state of Isreal.
An objective observer might find that strange, might find indeed that it was the reverse of the truth and that the continuance of the occupation is the greatest danger to the state of Israel and that a settlement can be designed which makes it safe. Unfortunately I think it is true that for reasons of history, which every civilised person understands and respects, many Israelis are quite irrational about their security. They find it harder than others to trust their neighbours. They find it easier than others to believe that they are safer by domination than by compromise.
All those who want a settlement must do their utmost to persuade the Israelis that on the contrary the dangers to them exist in maintaining or trying to maintain the status quo. They must be persuaded that many safeguards can be arranged in a settlement that would offer them security: for example, underwriting the frontiers by the great powers; the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping force in the occupied territories and in Gaza; monitoring the frontiers, which could be demilitarised; the acceptance by the new state—as I hope it would—of a kind of Austrian status of neutrality; and arms limitations. All those and many more options are practicable. In the search for a settlement I believe that anyone who wants a settlement should try to persuade that truth on the Israelis. The Israelis must also be urged to speak with the Palestinians and to participate in an international conference.
Finally, on the Palestinian side, in order to help the moderates who have made such a great initiative I would hope that, for example, Mr. Arafat could be invited to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. In Britain I would hope that the Foreign Secretary could invite appropriate PLO representatives to meet him.
Even on the most hopeful estimates, the Israeli occupation is likely to continue for many months if not for years. I should like to consider what can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people there. In large measure I shall be following representations made to the Government last week by seven of our major charities—the British Refugee Council, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Quaker Peace and Service, Save the Children Fund, the United Nations Association's International Service, and War on Want.
The Israeli Government have banned the media from the areas of operation of the Israeli army. The outrages which are committed on the West Bank are becoming almost a matter of routine. It is possible to become forgetful, even de-sensitised, to what is going on there and to the sufferings of the victims. We can read the bald statistics that up to 400 civilians have
1106
been shot dead, that others have been beaten to death, that many thousands more have been wounded by gunfire and many thousands detained without trial or deported.
The facts are so outrageous that it is hard to believe them. It is hard to imagine soldiers indiscriminately beating and shooting unarmed civilians, men and women, boys and girls—sometimes small boys and small girls. To all civilised people, not least those who have many friends among the Palestinians in the occupied territories, Israel's conduct is utterly intolerable. My purpose tonight is to urge the Government to redouble their efforts to put an end to it.
The Government's obligation here in my view derives from Britain being a signatory to the fourth Geneva convention. That convention was agreed in 1949 and has since been signed by 163 governments, all of them—except Israel—declaring that the convention applies to the Israeli occupation.
I should like to mention a few of the articles of the convention which are being persistently breached by the Israelis. For example, Article 33 reads in part:
"Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation and of terrorism are prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited".
For intimidation and terror we have only to look at the casualty figures I have quoted. Collective punishments are regularly imposed in the form of destruction of crops, either by uprooting olive trees and citrus groves, or by banning whole villages from harvesting their crops, or in other ways. As regards crops, the Israeli commander of the central area declared last September:
"This was the policy during the plum harvest and during the grape harvest. It will also be in effect during the olive harvest".
Other collective penalties include cutting off water and electricity, preventing food and fuel from reaching camps and villages and the demolition of houses.
Article 49 reads in part:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or that of any other country … are prohibited".
But of course deportations by the Israeli Government have continued. They have been unanimously condemned by the Security Council, including the United States. Scores of Palestinians born and bred in Palestine have been taken from their families and dumped in Lebanon. The Minister of Defence in Israel, Mr Rabin, said:
"We have used deportations in the past and we will use them again in the future".
The same Article 49 continues:
"The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies".
But of course in the settlements policy the Israeli Government breach that provision as well. I think it is interesting that an explanation of this section of the article was given and published by the International Red Cross long before the Israeli occupation began. That commentary said that this section of the article:
"is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain powers which transferred portions of their own populations to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonise those territories".

1107
I am afraid that one could hardly have a better definition than that of the Israeli settlements policy.
Articles 79 to 135 set out regulations for the treatment of internees. They insist that since detention is without a charge and without trial and should be strictly for security reasons only, it must not be treated as a punishment and detainees must not be removed from the occupied territories.
Possibly the most notorious Israel detention camp is Ansar 3 at Ketsiot which holds 2,500 Palestinian detainees. It is in the Negev desert, outside the occupied territories and therefore illegal. The physical conditions in the camp and the treatment of the detainees go far beyond punishment. In fact it is outrageous. Last August the International Red Cross declared:
"The International Committee for the Red Cross learned with consternation that two administrative detainees had been shot dead at the Queziot [Ketsiotj military detention centre on 16th August 1988 … Ever since the camp was opened in March 1988 the International Committee of the Red Cross has repeatedly stressed to the Israeli authorities that detention and internment of persons from the occupied territories on Israeli soil, particularly in the harsh climatic conditions prevailing in this case, was not compatible with the provisions of the 4th Geneva convention and could only lead to tension and unrest".
To sum up there is a summing up article, Article 147, which defines what it calls "grave" breaches of the convention:
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment … wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement, wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial … extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly".
That describes the Israeli occupation, and though it was drafted 40 years ago it is easily recognisable today as a description of that occupation.
Those who drafted the convention after the war had in mind the horrors of the Nazi occupation. The crimes committed by the Nazi occupiers, especially against the Jewish people, are and remain unique. Nevertheless, it is ironical that this convention should now be directly relevant to crimes committed by occupiers who are themselves Jewish.
I turn now to the Government's duties in this matter. Article 1 of the convention states:
"The high contracting parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances".
All signatories commit themselves to ensuring respect for the convention.
I therefore ask the Minister a number of questions on this matter of which I have given him notice. First, I ask him to state that the British defence regulations under which these injustices are committed by the Israelis are null and void, and that they have been invalidated and were invalidated by the British Government when it left the area at the end of the mandate. I ask him to inform the Israelis of this and argue, as he can, that these regulations can no longer be legitimately invoked. Secondly, what approaches has he made to the Israeli Government about these breaches of the convention and what were the results?
Thirdly, has he discussed collective action on this matter with fellow signatories of the convention in
1108
the European Community? For example, has he suggested or, if not, will he suggest that the European Community might form a commission to monitor breaches of the international convention? Maybe while condemning the breaches of this convention on the West Bank and in Gaza, it will be the view of the Government and of the Community that it would be inappropriate for the Community to continue to grant to Israel valuable financial and economic privileges in the Common Market which it does not grant to other countries with impeccable records on human rights. I should very much like to hear the Minister's comment on that.
To conclude, the Government's record on Palestine has been a little patchy recently. There have been good things; but, on the other hand, we notice that the Government declined to vote against refusing Mr. Arafat a visa to visit the United States. They refused to vote in favour of holding the United Nations Assembly in Geneva which has proved to be most successful and effective. Therefore, I hope that, despite these actions of the Government on abstentions, which are difficult to understand and which have been defended by the Government with a lot of weasel words but without any reference to principle, the Minister will be able to give some truly positive replies to the questions that I have asked him.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He and I have spoken together in debates on Palestine on numerous occasions and we have nearly always taken the same line, which is to underline and reinforce the extent of the human rights violations, generally speaking the attacks on the Arabs by the Israelis. As your Lordships know, I had a debate yesterday on human rights violations worldwide. I deliberately refrained from mentioning Palestine.
I shall not go into details now because I have spoken about these violations on so many occasions before that it would only weary your Lordships if I did so again. However, I shall bring out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned, and it is important to consider it in some detail, and that is the destruction of houses. The second main point I want to make, which so far as I remember he did not touch upon, is the educational problem and the closure of so many educational institutions.
Let us turn first to the demolition of houses. In the first week of November of this year at least 62 Palestinians were made homeless through extensive house demolition. According to the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, the Israeli authorities are reported to have demolished 16 houses in various West Bank locations and two in the Gaza Strip. In the villages of Kufr Salem and Beit Fureek, where four and five buildings were targeted respectively, the army operation sparked off violent villagers' protests, but of course these protests were unavailing.
What were the reasons for these demolitions? The military authorities justified them by declaring that the houses concerned had been built without a permit. Of course it is almost impossible to get a

1109
permit. Many people are still homeless. Indeed apart from the demolitions of whole houses, it has been reported that parts of houses have been sealed off, thereby depriving the families of their full usage of these houses. That is the first point.
The second point is even more important, and so far as I know has not been mentioned at all in any of our previous debates in your Lordships' House, and that is the clamp-down on education. To the Palestinians education is of paramount important. Your Lordships will know how many Palestinians there are all over the Middle East and indeed in Europe too who have studied worldwide and have the most remarkable education qualifications, but the Israelis are deliberately stifling this expansion of education.
Indeed I would say that the Palestinians regard education as an insurance policy that would provide them with a bulwark against the appalling things that have been happening to them. But what is the situation now? I should be most grateful if the Minister could confirm these facts. According to the best information that I have received, the eight Palestinian universities, which together have more than 17,000 students, have been closed since the beginning of the year; 850 primary and secondary schools were closed for more than four months, reopened for a few weeks, and have been closed again since 21st July. On 19th September 10 adult training centres that give evening classes were closed.
This systematic persecution and will to prevent all education are on the general pretext that the universities and schools are centres of unrest. Whether or not that is so one does not know. We have of course heard of the activities of students throwing stones and so on, but I am quite certain that the activities of these students do not in any way justify the draconian measures taken against the education system. What is even worse is that parents who have been giving children lessons at home have been accused of subversive activity. That seems scarcely credible. I shall be interested to hear any comments that the Minister may have.
There seems no point in going into further detail at this later hour. In conclusion, I wish to say again that I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I very much welcome recent developments, particularly the so-called formation of a Palestinian state—how long it will survive, we do not know—and also Yasser Arafat's renunciation of terrorism reported in the press—again, we wonder how permanent that is. I very much hope that it will last.
I have always had sympathetic replies from the Minister to my interventions on Palestine and the occupied territories I therefore look forward to his reply to this short debate.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for choosing today for the debate. It seems an amazing coincidence that we should discuss the subject on what is, as the noble Lord said, a historic day. We all hope and pray that it may be a turning point in what
1110
has been the sad and tragic background of the Middle East for many years.
The noble Lord gave some reasons why he felt that a settlement would be in Israel's interest. I completely agree with what he said. He asked that the Government should urge the Israelis to respond positively to Arafat's proposal and to take part in the negotiations. I agree with that also.
He then moved to the part of the debate that concerns the fourth Geneva convention and concentrated very much on the atrocities and breaches that have occurred. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, supported the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, of Israeli action. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord asked the Minister whether he can confirm or give some account of what he knows about the breaches of the convention that have taken place in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
I am sure that the decision of the American Government to hold a dialogue with the PLO leader will be welcome news to all noble Lords. It must be regarded as a satisfactory outcome of a series of diplomatic developments that have gone on during the year, which the noble Lord, Lod Mayhew, listed. We join in giving a firm welcome to the statement, made in unequivocal terms by Yasser Arafat in Geneva, that the PLO renounces terrorism in all its forms, recognises Israel's right to exist and accepts without conditions UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for negotiation of a Middle East peace settlement. All that has happened there is of a most positive nature.
That is one side of the equation. We wonder what has been the response of the Israelis. So far we have heard some Israeli spokesmen who have reacted in a very negative way. Indeed, the ambassador in Washington said that he was bitterly disappointed. There has today been from Shimon Peres a statement which is of a more positive nature. He said, among other things:
"We believe that the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, and the solution of the Palestinian problem, can be reached only diplomatically, politically and peacefully. We do rot seek any military solution to these problems".
He said also:
"If there will be a period of quietness, I am sure that the Government of Israel, present and future, will agree to the holding of completely free elections in the West Bank, so Cut the Palestinians will be able to elect their own representatives".
It must be remembered that there is no official response from the Israeli Government because at present there is no Israeli Government. The sooner the political parties in Israel come together and form a government, the sooner we shall hear officially of the way in which they intend to respond to the PLO leader's concession. If they doubt Yasser Arafat's sincerity, they should call his bluff. If he cannot fulfil his promises he will be exposed. That can come only from a government spokesman when a firm government are in place.
We are at an early stage in the process and a great deal must be decided. We should feed the present eurphoria but it may not be maintained. However, we must hope that Yasser Arafat will maintain the support of his people and that the talks with the

1111
Americans will be a significant step forward in the peace process. We also hope that the Israeli's will make a move in that direction.
The noble Lord and the noble Viscount have told the Minister that we expect an Israeli response to the initiative; otherwise we cannot believe that they want peace. If that is so it can be only because they wish to retain the territories which they now hold, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has said. Today my right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman called on Israel to hold talks with the PLO after the US recognised the movement as a negotiating partner. I know that pressure will be brought to bear from every side for that to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of the breaches of the fourth Geneva convention and I should like to comment briefly in support of what he said. One cannot doubt the validity of the proof of the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian communities. However, we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
The noble Lord has pointed out the fact that the Israelis maintain that they are not in breach of the convention; that the territories are not occupied but are disputed; and that they are in charge of the territories until such time as their status is decided by a peace treaty between the belligerent parties. He has asked the Minister to urge the Israelis to accept the convention of which they are co-signatories, as are we.
There is a clear impasse because there is no Israeli recognition of the convention. That leads the noble Lord to wonder what can now be done for the suffering of the Palestinian families who have lived in distress and have seriously suffered over the past year. He mentioned the group of seven major British voluntary agencies which are working in the territories and which have drawn attention to many of the violations. The noble Lord pointed out the fact that for most of the year schools have been closed by military order. That is a serious matter considering the effect it may have on the present generation of children. The voluntary agencies have pointed out the harm that is being done to the work of charitable and development institutions. They have also pointed out the harm that is being done to the economy of the territories.
The British Refugee Council has been most active. It hosts an information service which monitors deportations and house demolitions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It maintains that they are in breach of the convention. It also maintains that there has been a very rapid increase in the use of such measures by the administration over the past year. There has been a rise in deportations as well as punitive house demolitions. Again, those have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Amnesty International is always very concerned about the use of live ammunition and the imprisonment of people who refuse to do military service. It has brought out some very worrying statistics. UNICEF, which spends 2½ million dollars a year in these territories, is also worried about the serious state of the health of young children. We are
1112
receiving clear indications from those organisations, which want nothing better than to work and improve the state of the people in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. Quite clearly that is a very difficult task.
From these Benches, we urge the Government to do two things: We should like them to support those voluntary organisations in giving further aid to enable them to increase their work. We should also like them to press for an international conference, which is the only framework in which to work out the future and to find a way towards a peaceful settlement.
We must remember that building peace out of conflict is a very slow process and demands understanding, trust and reconciliation. To find those ingredients on each side of this conflict will certainly need help and support from many different areas. I hope that the Israelis will play their part in working towards that peaceful settlement.
Perhaps I may quote my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman, who said today:
"we believe that it is necessary for Israel to talk to enemies as well as friends in order to secure peace".
I shall end on that note.
9.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the Middle East, let alone his skill in timing, in drawing our attention today to the question of the Israeli practices in the occupied territories. I am very grateful to him for giving me notice of many of the points he covered in his speech and the questions he asked.
To some extent other contributors, the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, have ranged rather more widely. However, there can be no doubt of the concern we all feel, which the Government fully share, at the situation in the occupied territories and the lack of progress towards a negotiated settlement.
It is just over a year since the Palestinian uprising began. It shows no sign of abating. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, gave some figures. Mine are that over 300 Palestinians have been killed over the last year and thousands injured. Over 18,000 have been arrested. Some 5,000 are still detained; 1,600 of them without trial under administrative orders and many in appalling conditions. It is surely now clear to all that, as my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary warned before the uprising began, the status quo cannot continue. Repression offers no answer; it merely brutalises the occupiers.
Our view is clear. Pending its withdrawal as part of a comprehensive settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 242, Israel has a duty to administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law and human rights standards.
We agree of course that Israel has the right, indeed the responsibility, to ensure public order and safety in the occupied territories. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague regulations states this unambiguously; but there are limits. The maintenance of public order cannot

1113
justify the use of excessive force, including live ammunition and plastic bullets fired at close range and beatings of unarmed persons. The figures I have already quoted testify to the results of these policies. But they have not weakened Palestinian resolve; rather, every funeral strengthens it.
We, like the great majority of the international community, maintain that the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war of 12th August 1949 applies to the occupied territories. There is no substance in Israeli claims to the contrary. In our view the deportation of Palestinians from the occupied territories—32 so far this year—contravenes Article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests. This policy has been widely condemned, most notably in Resolutions 607 and 608 passed by the United Nations Security Council earlier this year. Population transfer, whatever the numbers involved, is unacceptable.
Collective punishments, too, such as the demolition of houses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, referred, are prohibited not only by Article 50 of the 1907 Hague regulations but also by Article 33 of the fourth Geneva convention. They conflict, sadly, with Israel's proud traditions of justice and observance of the rule of law. They only add to the sum of Palestinian grievances. Israeli apologists sometimes argue that these punishments are provided for in regulations surviving from the British Mandate. Let me take this opportunity to make clear, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, as he would have me do, that such is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. As a result of the Palestinian (Revocations) Order in Council 1948, the Palestine (Defence Order in Council 1937, and the defence regulations made under it, have not been in force, as a matter of English law, since the making of the 1948 revocation order. If the Israelis now seek to apply the same or similar regulations, that is their decision for which they must take responsibility.
I can confirm, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has told your Lordships, that schools and universities in the occupied territories have been closed by the Israelis on security grounds. We and our European partners have made representations to the Israelis but have been unable to convince them to take a different view of their security problems. The noble Viscount gave figures but I am afraid that I am riot in a position this evening to verify those figures but I shall look into the position to see whether I can provide any further information by letter.
We have repeatedly raised with the Israelis these and other breaches of the fourth Geneva convention. The Twelve approached the Israelis earlier this year about deportations; there have been no more deportations since our démarche on 18th August. My honourable friend the Minister of State raised the use of plastic bullets with the Israeli ambassador in September and the Twelve followed up in Jerusalem in October. We have also taken up a number of individual cases in some of which the action we sought has subsequently been taken. The Foreign Minister of Greece, speaking on behalf of the Twelve
1114
in this week's General Assembly debate on Palestine in Geneva, called once again on Israel to respect the convention. The Israelis can therefore be in no doubt of our views on this matter. We shall of course be ready to take up with them further breaches of the convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested a new body to monitor Israeli breaches of the convention. We and our partners in the Twelve already work together to monitor Israeli practices in the occupied territories and take up specific cases as appropriate. Therefore, while I hear what the noble Lord says, I have to say that we do not consider that additional machinery is needed. Nor do we think that cancellation of the EC's agreements with Israel, which are similar to those the EC has with other Mediterranean states, would help to secure Israeli compliance with the convention. Economic sanctions are not the answer to the complex problems of the Middle East.
We shall continue our own efforts to help to improve conditions in the occupied territories. We have increased our bilateral aid programme to £840,000 in 1987 and the European Community's aid has also gone up. Our own aid is spent largely on the training of Palestinians and in support of projects run by British non-governmental organisations to which I, too, gladly pay tribute for the very good work that they do.
We continue to be one of the largest contributors, both directly and via the EC, to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency who provide services, mainly health and education, for the 2·2 million registered Palestinian refugees in the region. I am glad to pay tribute now to the professionalism and dedication of UNRWA's staff, who include many Britons. They do a first-rate job. In addition to our annual contribution of £5·25 million to UNRWA's regular budget we are now contributing to the establishment of a new unit to assess the requirement for additional services in the West Bank and Gaza.
We have also played a leading role in promoting preferential access to the EC for Palestinian industrial and agricultural products. Palestinian producers have reached agreement with the Israeli authorities over export arrangements and contracts have now been signed to supply produce from the occupied territories to outlets in Europe. I understand that the first shipment of citrus fruit from Gaza is due to arrive in the Netherlands in the next few days. We shall continue to monitor closely how these arrangements work in practice.
In all these ways we are trying to help improve conditions in the occupied territories. But economic development can be no substitute for a just and lasting political settlement which will enable both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security. Such a settlement must be based on the two principles outlined in the Venice Declaration of 1980 which we and our European partners have consistently upheld; recognition of the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence, and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The Venice Declaration also said that the PLO should be associated with any negotiations. Clearly,

1115
the Palestinians must be involved in any discussions of their own future and must be able to choose their own representatives at such discussions. Equally, the Israelis cannot be expected to negotiate with people pledged to the destruction of their state. That is why we have argued that the PLO, if it is to take part in negotiations, must accept Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, recognise Israel's right to a secure existence and renounce terrorism and violence.
On 9th December a senior adviser to Mr. Arafat, Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, met my honourable friend, the Minister of State, and issued a public statement which met in full our long-standing conditions for ministerial contact with the PLO. This was an important step forward which was confirmed by Mr. Arafat, in Geneva yesterday. We warmly welcome his clear statement which has opened the way to a dialogue between the US and the PLO and to the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. We are greatly encouraged by this development.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked whether or not there was a possibility of a meeting here between the Secretary of State, the Foreign Ministers of the EC and Mr. Arafat. We have no such plan at present but we would be willing to consider it if we thought that a meeting would contribute to the peace process.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister's reply. I did not specifically ask that the Secretary of State should meet Mr. Arafat but that he should meet appropriate representatives of the PLO.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if I mistook the noble Lord, I apologise. Perhaps I may give him the same answer to that point. My honourable friend had a meeting only on 9th December. This is a step in that direction. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. We shall certainly consider any other suggestions for meetings in due course.
The PLO is now committed to the search for a peaceful solution. But that search will not be easy; the past 40 years have left a legacy of suspicion and
1116
hatred on both sides. The Palestinians will have to live up to their fair words and continue to demonstrate to Israel their genuine commitment to peace. Just as Israel will not repress the uprising by force, so the Palestinians will not achieve justice through terrorism and violence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, it is now for Israel to respond positively to the PLO's commitment to peace. Israel too needs to confirm its acceptance of Security Council Resolution 242 and the principle of territory for peace. Israeli caution is understandable. But present Israeli policies offer no prospect of short-term quiet in the occupied territories let alone of a long-term solution. If Israel is to achieve the peace it needs, its Government must surely not denounce the PLO out of hand but test its good faith through face-to-face negotiations.
Like the noble Baroness, we still believe that an international conference under UN auspices offers the best framework for such negotiations. Such a conference should not have the power to impose solutions, nor to veto agreements freely negotiated between the parties; it would not therefore be a trap for Israel but an opportunity. We call on Israel to reconsider its opposition to a conference, and on its new leaders, whoever they may be, to have the courage that moderation and peace demand.
We look too to the new United States Administration, whose role in the peace process remains indispensable, to give priority to new efforts to bring about negotiations. We and our European partners remain ready to complement and support these efforts in any way we can.

London Regional Transport Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH: INTERIM REPORT
  AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH: INTERIM REPORT
  HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE I (AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH)
  HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUB-COMMITTEE I (AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD RESEARCH)
  HIV INFECTIONS AND AIDS
  HIV INFECTIONS AND AIDS
  CARE OF FORMER PATIENTS
  CARE OF FORMER PATIENTS
  POLLUTION CONTROL: CONSULTATION PROPOSALS
  POLLUTION CONTROL: CONSULTATION PROPOSALS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: IMPACT
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: IMPACT
  ORGANIC FOOD STANDARDS REGISTER: REVIEW
  ORGANIC FOOD STANDARDS REGISTER: REVIEW